25
   

Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2015 11:09 am
@korkamann,
Quote:
Why is it we have never had a female president of the US before?

because women were not in politics for a long time, and it takes a long time for a member of any group to reach the top job after the group is equal

Quote:
Why is it women continues to make far less than males in our society
Younger women make more because women are doing better than men in the job market and education, all we need to do is wait for that stat to change, no more action is needed.

Quote:
This is a man's world" and the Republican Party will never let women forget this.
The conservatives I know consider women the equal to men, though they do tend to like the traditional division of labor. However, they would be very happy to see women excel in politics in general and in the R party in particular.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2015 12:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Younger women make more because women are doing better than men in the job market and education,


Some citation needed here, otherwise people might think you're just making **** up.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2015 12:27 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Younger women make more because women are doing better than men in the job market and education,


Some citation needed here, otherwise people might think you're just making **** up.

People who are even only minimally aware of what is going on should know basic facts like this for one thing, and for another I have over the years documented this many times. At some point if people are still demanding training wheels it has to be that they dont want to ride for real.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2015 02:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
No citation, so this is just **** you're making up.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 02:33 pm
Breaking news from the NY Times:


Quote:
Court Upholds Texas Measures That Imperil Abortion Clinics

A federal appellate court upheld some of the toughest provisions of a Texas abortion law on Tuesday, putting 13 of the state’s abortion clinics at risk of permanently shutting their doors, which would leave the nation’s second-most populous state with eight abortion providers.

The appellate court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, sided for the most part with Texas and the abortion law the Republican-dominated Legislature passed in 2013, known as House Bill 2. It ruled that Texas can require all abortion clinics in the state to meet the same building, equipment and staffing standards as hospital-style surgical centers. Thirteen clinics whose facilities do not meet the new standards could be forced to close, leaving many regions without abortion clinics.



The president appoints federal judges...and the Justices of the Supreme Court. Anything that helps the far-right dominated Republicans to win that office must be opposed with as much energy as possible.

You all know how that applies to the ongoing discussion happening in this thread.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 02:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
That argument does not work on me anymore. The courts should not be political, so the proper response is to demand that politics be taken out of the justice system, it is not to work in over drive to push the justice system towards our personal biases. If you are not willing to put justice before politics then you are in my opinion part of the problem, and you should be condemned.

I also submit that you are being manipulated by the two parties into tolerating their abysmal performance on the false premise that you have to otherwise the world will end. Corrupt government running a corrupt justice system is in fact very close the the end of the world for the current system, because that is what will drive a revolution just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

My advice: wise up and demand better before your city burns to the ground.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
That argument does not work on me anymore. The courts should not be political, so the proper response is to demand that politics be taken out of the justice system, it is not to work in over drive to push the justice system towards our personal biases.

While you're at it, you may also demand a pony. But demanding something is different from getting it.

Under the US Constitution, the president appoints federal judges (which is the president's political decision) with the advice and consent of the Senate (which will make its own political decisons about granting or withholding it). Good luck taking politics out of political decisions!
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Could not care less about whether my argument "works" on you or not. In any case, it was intended for open-minded people...and I just do not consider you particularly open-minded. I hope to see that change, but I will not hold my breath.

I am not "being manipulated" by either party. I am simply working with a pragmatic outlook. My personal opinion is that if the Republicans take the Oval Office...the agenda I favor suffers...and suffers significantly. If the day comes where I see a meaningful alternative to working within the system now in place, I might be persuaded to move in a different direction. I don't see that on the horizon.

Talk is cheap.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:12 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Under the US Constitution, the president appoints federal judges (which is the president's political decision) with the advice and consent of the Senate (which will grant or withhold it according to its own political decisions). Good luck taking politics out of political decisions!


Under the same Constitution the justice system was able to run for decades at a time with politics being an annoyance rather than a devastating corrupting influence. Your argument is bologna. The Constitution is not the problem, the people operating the government are the problem. This includes the American people, we who have long encouraged injustice and approved of the theory that might makes right.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not "being manipulated" by either party. I am simply working with a pragmatic outlook. My personal opinion is that if the Republicans take the Oval Office...the agenda I favor suffers...and suffers significantly. If the day comes where I see a meaningful alternative to working within the system now in place, I might be persuaded to move in a different direction. I don't see that on the horizon.


So long as you and yours are never the target of the unjust justice system that could possibly work for a while so long as you dont have enough scruples to be bothered by the guy you look at in the mirror every morning. Your bad acts will however earn my condemnation.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Thomas' argument is far from baloney. It is spot on.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Under the same Constitution the justice system was able to run for decades at a time with politics being an annoyance rather than a devastating corrupting influence.

What is your evidence for that?
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
My take on things seem more in line with what is actually happening in the world. If you want to live in "I hope" land...go for it.

Your "condemnation" is a joke, Hawk. Stop taking yourself so serious. Lighten up.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

My take on things seem more in line with what is actually happening in the world. If you want to live in "I hope" land...go for it.

Your "condemnation" is a joke, Hawk. Stop taking yourself so serious. Lighten up.



No. The American Constitutional society can not function with in incompetent judiciary operating under poorly written unjust corrupt laws. To lighten up would be to abdicate my duties as a citizen. I will not as you do lower myself to judging our justice system by political standards, it is the wrong yardstick and me not being an idiot know better than to use the wrong tools when the right ones are at hand.

You are of course free to continue to condemn me for being the better man, but dont expect me to take your objection seriously.
Frank Apisa
 
  6  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2015 03:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
One...you are not "the better man."

Two...you are taking yourself too seriously.

Three...lighten the hell up.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2015 09:15 am
@Thomas,
Evidence - he needs no evidence. Isn't it enough it burst spontaneously from his fevered brow?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2015 09:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
One...you are not "the better man."


Neither word applies, more of a lesser primate.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2015 11:19 am
Hillary Clinton’s money problem




Hillary Clinton is shown. | AP Photo

It’s unclear whether a wealthy Democratic 2016 aspirant can succeed in a populist era. | AP Photo
By BEN WHITE | 6/29/14 6:59 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton is having a very hard time being rich.

After two weeks of verbal gaffes and unflattering headlines, Democratic operatives, political historians and counselors to the nation’s wealthy agree that Clinton’s current strategy — acting like she’s not incredibly rich and made her money the old-fashioned way — is not working and needs to change. Fast.
Continue Reading
Text Size

-
+
reset

Latest on POLITICO

Longtime Rep. Phil Crane dies at 84
Cantor: Obama 'incendiary' on immigration
Obama's big trade moment
Obama: 'The buck stops right here'
Airstrikes target ISIL leaders in Iraq
DWS pledges party review

“Her responses so far have come off as somewhat disingenuous, probably because she has a lot of ambivalence about her own wealth,” said Jamie Traeger-Muney, a psychologist whose Wealth Legacy Group focuses on counseling the affluent, an especially busy business in the current era of hostility to the 1 percent. “It feels like there is a lot of shame in there, and that is very common for wealth holders, especially in today’s climate.”

(PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton starts her book tour)

It’s unclear whether a super-wealthy Democratic presidential aspirant can succeed in a populist era defined by a tepid economy, flat wages and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Some Democrats argue these early dust-ups won’t matter unless Clinton gets a primary challenge from the left. But the current criticism over her wealth could influence her decision to run — and if she runs and gets the nomination, Republicans could paint her as out of touch with average Americans, much as Democrats did to Mitt Romney in 2012. There’s also a chance Republicans will wind up nominating a populist, Wall Street-basher of their own, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

What is clear now is that the status quo for Clinton and the conundrum of what to do about it are quickly giving new meaning to the phrase “Hard Choices.”

Traeger-Muney said Clinton needs to figure out a way to “own” her own wealth and success and not sound defensive about it while continuing her current strategy of pointing to all the work she’s done for the middle class and poor over her long career in public service.

“It would be great for her to explore her own ambivalence around wealth and what it means to have her policy views and be a wealth holder,” Traeger-Muney said. “The moment she’s at peace with that for herself, the need for coaching would diminish.”

(PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton’s 50 influentials)

Many Democrats are offering a version of the same advice. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) last week told MSNBC that Clinton “needs to be comfortable that they’ve made a lot of money,” adding that it’s “very American, making a lot of money. Many of our modern-day presidents have made a lot of money, so I don’t think she needs to be defensive about that.”

The defensiveness began with Clinton’s comment that she and her husband were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House. Then she suggested she was not among the “truly well off” and banked all her huge speaking fees by “dint of hard work.” She also said she pays “ordinary income tax,” unlike those real fat cats on Wall Street.

If Clinton can’t figure out how to get beyond this and wear her riches more comfortably, the next bit of advice from Democrats is pretty simple: Stop talking about it.

“The appropriate solution is to never discuss it again,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic operative. “Whatever she says is going to wind up in negative ads run by independent committees lined up against her and will probably include a backdrop of a lot of poor people.”

(PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton delivers keynote address in D.C.)

Republicans are already having a field day with Clinton’s comments, calling her the Democrats’ version of Romney. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday that all the stories about Clinton’s wealth are giving Americans “Hillary fatigue.”

Even Clinton’s possible 2016 rival, Vice President Joe Biden, jumped in last week, noting that he was the “poorest man in Congress” and did not even have a savings account or own any stocks and bonds. (According to disclosure reports, Biden does in fact have both a savings account and mutual funds.)

Sheinkopf, echoing a number of other Democrats who did not want to go on record discussing the party’s possible presidential nominee, said there’s little Clinton can do to eliminate negative press around the hundreds of thousands of dollars she earns speaking to bankers and other industry groups or the way she talks about it.

“By talking about money you automatically raise the hackles of people who are never, ever going to be able to make that kind of money,” he said.

One other possible solution? A strengthening economy that finally raises wages enough to ease the current deeply negative views Americans hold about their own prospects and the direction of the national economy. “Should the economy improve significantly between now and 2016, it will be a lot easier,” Sheinkopf said. “The attacks will have a lot less value.”

The problem with that hope is the economy actually contracted by nearly 3 percent in the first quarter. And while the rest of the year promises to be significantly better, there is very little chance that a fresh economic boom will arrive in the next two years to blow out the current mood that President Barack Obama himself recently diagnosed as “sour.”

And even a new boom might not be enough to erase Clinton’s problem.



Some observers say Clinton’s real trouble is not the amount of money she and her husband have racked up — The Washington Post reported that Bill Clinton has made $104.9 million in speaking fees since leaving office — but how they made it, mostly through massive checks for talking to special interest groups. Stopping the speeches now might help Clinton, observers say, but that won’t change the money that’s already in the bank.

“How have they made all this money? Speaking fees? Book advances? These are not the ways that Americans are comfortable with Americans making a lot of money,” said Louis Hyman, a historian of capitalism at Cornell. “There is no way her wealth can reflect on her doing better for other people. It’s not like she became rich through the creation of a business that employs a lot of people.”
Continue Reading
Text Size

-
+
reset

This is where Clinton gets in trouble for comments like the one she made to The Guardian in which she said her money came through “dint of hard work.” Americans generally do not view getting hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak to Goldman Sachs executives and other well-to-do audiences as “hard work.”

“With Hillary Clinton, you get the feeling that it’s just knowing the right people,” Hyman said. “And in the aftermath of the financial crisis, people are just much more suspicious of wealth and how it’s acquired than they were before.”

Romney faced this problem in 2012, especially in Ohio and other swing states where Democrats successfully hammered him for sometimes breaking up companies as a private equity executive. The GOP nominee was never able to recover from the infamous “47 percent” video or criticism that he was a vulture capitalist rather than a job creator.

Clinton’s supporters say her money issues are nowhere near those of Romney, who was widely seen as promoting economic policies to further aid wealthy people like himself. And they argue that while some of the comments have been problematic, they are often plucked out of context and amplified by a gaffe-obsessed media.

They note that in the full transcript of the Guardian interview, Clinton talks about “how blessed” she and her husband are. “We were neither of us raised with these kinds of opportunities, and we worked really hard for them,” Clinton said, according to the transcript. And some argue that Clinton was including herself in the “truly well off” category while noting that others who are equally well-off pay the lower capital gains tax rate on investment income.

Even on this front, Clinton has a problem. Because it was her husband, along with congressional Republicans, who lowered the capital gains rate to 20 percent from 28 percent in 1997.

Clinton herself has acknowledged that some of her comments on her wealth have been not been helpful. “Well, I shouldn’t have said the five or so words that I said, but my inartful use of those few words doesn’t change who I am, what I’ve stood for my entire life, what I stand for today,” Clinton told PBS’ Gwen Ifill last week.

But the controversies show no signs of stopping. Last week, students from the University of Nevada Las Vegas demanded that Clinton return some or all of a $225,000 fee for speaking at a university event. And The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton received $300,000 for a speech earlier this year at UCLA. The high fees for speaking at schools are particularly troubling for Clinton at a time when the issue of high tuition and big student debt loads are prominent in the national policy conversation, especially on the left.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), often invoked as the model of a potential populist challenger to Clinton, has made student debt one of her signature issues. Warren spent a good bit of her own recent book, “A Fighting Chance,” recounting her humble roots in Oklahoma, where her father was a maintenance worker and her mother operated phones at Sears.

Warren has said repeatedly that she is “not running” for president. But some on the left openly pine for her or someone like her to take on Clinton.

Even if no Democratic challenger emerges, many in the party say figuring out how to deal with the wealth issue is an urgent project for Clinton.

“Unlike those with inherited wealth like the Rockefellers and Roosevelts, the Clintons don’t have long experience with this sort of thing,” said Democratic consultant Paul Equale. “Their rhetorical approach is guided by middle-class values which require them to almost deny their wealth, and when that doesn’t work, to discuss it in overarching terms that can sound disingenuous to some who are not quite as lucky.”

Equale’s advice is to drop the “flat broke” line and start this way: “Yes, we are very comfortable, but it wasn’t always that way …’”

And Traeger-Muney said Clinton should immediately lose the line about taxes: “Even if she pays ordinary tax rates, she is very far from ordinary.”


Ben White (@morningmoneyben)

Read more about:

Hillary Clinton, 2016 Elections, Democrats, Gaffes, Hard Choices, Elections

Short URL: http://politi.co/1jAyGA2
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2015 11:21 am
Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton

Lee Fang

July 23 2015, 12:49 p.m.


As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.

Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future.

Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as “bundlers” for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.

As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Akin Gump lobbyist and Clinton bundler Brian Popper disclosed that he previously helped CCA defeat efforts to compel private prisons to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Hillary Clinton has a complicated history with incarceration. As first lady, she championed efforts to get tough on crime. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Clinton said in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added.

In recent months, Clinton has tacked left in some ways, and now calls for alternatives to incarceration and for greater police accountability. And while Clinton has backed a path to citizenship for undocumented people in America, she recently signaled a willingness to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” a move that could lead to more immigrant detentions.

The future of both criminal justice reform and immigration are critical for private prison firms. The Geo Group, in a disclosure statement for its investors, notes that its business could be “adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws.”
Contact the author:

Lee Fang
[email protected]​theintercept.com
[email protected]
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2017 12:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Sat 11 Apr, 2015 12:11 am
Quote:
I am getting the notion that you do not want to see Hillary as president.


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

Quote:
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.
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.


Well I sure turned up smelling like a rose here, I said as far back as 2014 that the R's had concluded that Hillary is easy to beat, I said that they were licking their chops at the chance to take her on, that the D's would be dumb to nominate her, that the D party was dumb to not offer choices other than her.....and it all came to pass. I was also right about Trump...I noticed him mid Aug 2015 and by Sep 10 he was my guy. I said after he got no drop in support for mocking a cripple in Dec that he was going to win the R nomination (this is documented at my new home).

This is the "I told you so" that so many who mocked me here have coming. As for me claiming that the nation was rising up in revolt against the failed political class, which I have been saying at least back 5 years....ya, I was right about that too....

I am of the Truth Teller Tribe........we know stuff.
 

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 10/23/2020 at 02:34:15