When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

But presuming that Bernie or Elizabeth will get great things done immediately whereas Obama's incrementalism will not or cannot (because his intentions are morally or strategically compromised) is as not much less delusional than Trump or Cruz followers imagining those men, in the WH, can return the US and the world to their dream-world conceptions of the 1950s.

I had to read this a few times to be sure I understood what you are saying, Bernie, but I think I have it right...

...and I agree in spades.

I love Bernie Sanders and his ideas...just as I feel that way about Elizabeth Warren...

...but my sense of "standing up for principle...

...leads me to support Hillary Clinton rather than either of them, because I see Hillary as a winner...and the two of them as very, very long shots.

At times "winning" is, or should be, the principle.

(Only when writing this reply did the "Bernie" name strike home!)

0 Replies

@snood,

Good post, snood. The only problem with today's politics is the overwhelming coverage on Trump. The media people have lost their balance, and doesn't see the forest with the trees (there's more than one hopeful politician like Trump).

0 Replies

@snood,

It's never substantial, when a person has a different viewpoint, according to some. You must not have read much of what I have posted on a2k the last few months, because I have provided many stories and links. But every time I come on here I am asked to explain what the heck I am trying to say, as I had just come on here. It means you don't pay real attention, but just wait to throw in a retread of your last statements. partisanship makes people deaf and blind, pretty much.

0 Replies

People pushing the increments argument do not seem aware that the increments are to the negative side. We are fighting for you, but you must give us time. Meanwhile B Clinton kills welfare. Does the trade deal, etc. Kills important bank regulations. Obama does a big trade bill that Hillary calls the gold standard, until she realizes it could cost her votes. She's a weather vane for positions these days anyway. Dems sign spending bills that chip away more from the safety net. "O, we have your back. But we had to have the spending bill, so we gave away more of the safety net. Don't worry. Our incremental steps are looking out for you." Obama could have ended the Bush tax cuts, but he allowed enough to remain to cover his political donors. Hillary is one of the select candidates who will throw out some sops to the base, but otherwise, her heart and acts are corporate all the way. Follow the money. Her donors are the very ones we should be fighting.

4 Replies

I'm reminded of the promises Obama made about the NSA and drones... He not only didn't keep his promises, the USA' s crimes in these areas are worse under his direction.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

People pushing the increments argument do not seem aware that the increments are to the negative side. We are fighting for you, but you must give us time. Meanwhile B Clinton kills welfare. Does the trade deal, etc. Kills important bank regulations. Obama does a big trade bill that Hillary calls the gold standard, until she realizes it could cost her votes. She's a weather vane for positions these days anyway. Dems sign spending bills that chip away more from the safety net. "O, we have your back. But we had to have the spending bill, so we gave away more of the safety net. Don't worry. Our incremental steps are looking out for you." Obama could have ended the Bush tax cuts, but he allowed enough to remain to cover his political donors. Hillary is one of the select candidates who will throw out some sops to the base, but otherwise, her heart and acts are corporate all the way. Follow the money. Her donors are the very ones we should
be fighting.

I'm not deaf or blind. I have read every word of what you and Lash have been preaching over the last months. What's missing is substance. So, we should be "fighting" the "corruption ". What specifically are you going to be doing differently than you are doing right now, in the months after the Republicans take office? I say you're just making a bunch of noise.

One more thing; It's hard to take you seriously when you discard everything that Obama has done as not good enough.

The way you're measuring success, Bernie would inevitably let you down too. But you're too full of self righteous liberal evangelism to see that.

1 Reply

@snood,

I just think Bernie's the best chance we've had for an honest broker.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Edgarblythe wrote:

Quote:

Her donors are the very ones we should be fighting.

Fact is, the people who "think" like you are more correctly the people "we" ought to be fighting, Edgar. You are the kind of person urging others to do irreparable damage to the progressive agenda.

You are refusing to think...is what it is.

Yeah...in Texas...if you vote Green or absent yourself from the vote entirely...chances are it will not impact on how the electors for your state will go. But for people in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia for instance...the difference in votes between the two sides is razor thin...and taking the irrational approach you are advocating could throw the election to the Republicans...and to conservative America.

I expect you will pretend to be ignoring me...to justify coming back after leaving people with the impression that I had somehow driven you away...but others are making these same points with you.

Think, man! With your brain![/b]

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Hi edgar
"the increments are to the negative side". That's a false absolutism, isn't it? The percentage of Americans without health insurance has dropped dramatically due to Obama's incrementalist initiatives. That's a negative? Another false absolutism - "Clinton kills welfare". I'm not sure why you talk this way. It's factually and intellectually untidy.

Here's another example - "[Clinton's] heart and acts are corporate all the way".

I've no problem with any individual supporting Sanders over Clinton (which is explicit in what I said above). My complaint (joining Nyhan and Yglesias and many others) is imagining that any individual plopped down into the WH will, by the nature of their personal ideas or character, be able to accomplish much more at any faster rate than Obama has managed to do. The institutions (governmental, social, economic) are too large, the dynamics too powerful.

America's drift to the right and to the place where it is presently didn't happen because of Reagan. We can put crude (and therefore somewhat false) markers at the Goldwater phenomenon and the reactionary response to the civil rights movement and at the Powell memo, etc, but each of these merely demonstrate how incrementalism is the way of things in the real world.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote blatham:

Quote:

But presuming that Bernie or Elizabeth will get great things done immediately whereas Obama's incrementalism will not or cannot (because his intentions are morally or strategically compromised) is as not much less delusional than Trump or Cruz followers imagining those men, in the WH, can return the US and the world to their dream-world conceptions of the 1950s.

Good post, but I think you erred in saying the Republicans want to go back to the 1950s. True, they are looking to scrap Medicare, (1965), but they are looking to do the same thing to Social Security, (1935), and the Federal Reserve Bank, (1913). So it is more accurate to say that they want to go back to 1910 or earlier.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

People pushing the increments argument do not seem aware that the increments are to the negative side.

Obamacare is to the negative?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Sure. Depending on which conservative voice(s) one might attend to, different earlier points in time will be the presumed "golden age". For some, it's the Burkean pre-French Revolutionary period. My choice was arbitrary but there's a good argument to be made that a large portion of the GOP brain trust and voting block sees the 60s as the time when it all went to hell (a generational marker, I suspect).

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I just think Bernie's the best chance we've had for an honest broker.

Never have disagreed with that. My disagreement was with not supporting whoever the Dem nominee is.

1 Reply

@snood,

Hi snood
Nice to see you again.

0 Replies

@Lash,

"I just think Bernie's the best chance we've had for an honest broker."

And hello to you too.

Quite possibly true (I"m assuming you mean to suggest brokerage for the economic benefits of the "common man"). Unfortunately, I doubt that is the sole or most important characteristic we might seek in a modern US president.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

People pushing the increments argument do not seem aware that the increments are to the negative side.

Obamacare is to the negative?

They throw a little to the base with one hand while the other hand does the corporate bidding.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

How has the corporate bidding affected us?

1 Reply

@blatham,

Hillary gets her big money from corporate interests. You don't really think she will buck them very hard, do you? She is not pushing to free college student debt from the crushing burden of today. She is not going to push to get health care incorporated into Medicare. She will not seek to reinstate Glass/Stegall. She is not going to go against TPP and the other trade deal pending. There are other points, but I can't list everything.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They bribe congress to put the tax burden mostly on the middle class. They fund candidates to influence their work.
They bribe congress to cut social programs and fight wage increases.
They make untold fortunes off never ending wars
I should not have to say more. It is so obvious.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I don''t mind our tax burden. This is the country that allowed us the opportunities in education, work, and savings. I'm still receiving my social security and medicare; I've received more in benefits than I have paid into it.
Wage increases are done at the local level. I believe in our city, it's $13/hour. Wars are a fact of life. We elect our representatives in congress, and they're the ones who approve defense spending.

Even at $13/hour, most would not be able to afford the rents here.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know