80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  4  
Sun 21 Feb, 2016 03:05 pm
@maporsche,
There should be Congressional hearings...lasting about a year.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Sun 21 Feb, 2016 05:41 pm
@edgarblythe,
You do realize that Hillary didn't get 12 or 13 national delegates from this caucus, right? In fact if you give all the state delegates from this caucus to Bernie it changes nothing in the delegates to the national convention.
0 Replies
 
bwuk
 
  -2  
Sun 21 Feb, 2016 09:13 pm
Quote:
Clintons Have Three Cayman Island Accounts

From Bloomberg:

Ron Burkle, managing partner and founder of Yucaipa Cos., left, and former President Bill Clinton, right, stand side by side during the 2nd annual Clinton Global Initiative summit on Sept. 22, 2006, in New York.

Clinton’s Burkle Ties Include Funds in Cayman Islands

By Timothy J. Burger and Ryan J. Donmoyer

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Former President Bill Clinton’s decision to reconsider a business relationship with California billionaire Ron Burkle reflects concern those financial dealings may embarrass his wife’s presidential candidacy.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents and financial- disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton show that Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. LLC.

In 2004, Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, said she wanted to close the “loopholes” for “people who create a mailbox, or a drop, or send one person to sit on the beach in some island paradise and claim that it is their offshore headquarters.”

The former president’s possible decision to move away from Burkle “is all tied up with the laws of appearance and the politics of perception,” said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. “The world being what it is, people are attracted to the spouse of somebody with political power. The level of potential conflict is just that much higher with a former president and a senator who would be president.”


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-clintons-hid-income-in-cayman-islands
Blickers
 
  2  
Sun 21 Feb, 2016 09:58 pm
@bwuk,
That article is from 2007. If nothing's happened since everyone knew about it, I wouldn't worry a nine year old possible "scandal" that fizzled.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 21 Feb, 2016 10:02 pm
@Blickers,
That one won't even get any press.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 22 Feb, 2016 12:46 pm
Jon Chait on why Jeb failed and yet Hillary has not. Its a well-reasoned piece but I want to point out one other aspect again (bolded)...
Quote:
Unlike Trump, Sanders has a coherent (if not realistic) programmatic alternative. But the main difference is that Sanders is attacking a successful model of governance. His campaign is built upon discontent with President Obama’s achievements, and — to a lesser extent — discontent with Bill Clinton’s. Hillary Clinton is running as the heir to both administrations, a figure who will build upon their success.

This strategy is working because Bill Clinton was a successful president, and Obama has been an extremely successful one. There may be shortcomings in both of their records, but both of them managed to govern intelligently, competently, and in a way that looked after a relatively broad spectrum of interests.

George W. Bush’s presidency did none of these things. His administration was an abject disaster both domestically and abroad. Jeb Bush never figured out how to divest himself from his brother’s failure, and by the end reduced himself to running openly as his heir, bringing Dubya to campaign with him in his South Carolina box canyon stand. The Bush disaster presented Jeb with a double trap he could never escape. His brand was poison for swing voters. And conservatives, who had fallen mostly in line with Dubya during his presidency, were forced to disavow him as a heretic by the end so that their ideology could escape the wreckage.
http://nym.ag/1RiNpSB
That's the nature of a 'revolutionary' campaign. It must set itself up as something like the opposite of what has come before. It's a necessary framing. The mistake is to presume that binary framing describes reality.
0 Replies
 
bwuk
 
  -2  
Mon 22 Feb, 2016 04:25 pm
Why would Democrats elect a scary 1%er. I bet the accounts are still in the Caymans.
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 22 Feb, 2016 07:11 pm
@bwuk,
Quote:
Why would Democrats elect a scary 1%er. I bet the accounts are still in the Caymans.

I gather you are a conservative, bwuk. Question for you. If you were to choose a conservative political theorist from the following group who best reflects your personal political philosophy, which would that be?
Edmund Burke
Barry Goldwater
William Buckley
John Rawls
Mike Huckabee

0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Tue 23 Feb, 2016 09:16 am
@edgarblythe,
Sour grapes. After the planned parenthood edited video it is hard to trust these political videos. Wonder what the line is going to be in South Carolina from the Bernie Camp?

Quote:
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has a greater than 99% chance of winning the South Carolina primary.


source



0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 23 Feb, 2016 01:07 pm
I despise modern conservatism and the modern GOP. This creature just gets more vile as each month passes.
Quote:
Facing lawsuits over Kansas' requirement for proof of citizenship to register to vote, Secretary of State Kris Kobach on Saturday railed against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the League of Women Voters, labeling both groups "communist."

"The ACLU and their fellow communist friends, the League of Women Voters — you can quote me on that, the communist League of Women Voters — the ACLU and the communist League of Women Voters sued," Kobach said at the Kansas Republican Party's state convention, according to the Lawrence Journal-World.
http://bit.ly/1oFodg3

Quote:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on Tuesday compared a pending announcement from the White House on a plan to close Guantanamo Bay to the Trail of Tears.
http://bit.ly/1oFojnX
wmwcjr
 
  3  
Tue 23 Feb, 2016 02:03 pm
@blatham,
Shades of Joe McCarthy! Not surprising, is it? The father of the notorious Koch brothers happens to have been one of the founders of the John Birch Society. During the Cold War, their stock in trade was to attempt to destroy those whom they disagreed with politically by falsely accusing them of being Communists, which is the moral equivalent of falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile. They tried to discredit the civil rights movement by claiming that it was Communist-inspired -- a proud legacy of political conservatism. Yes, I've said this before on several previous occasions; but at the risk of boring the reader: As a college student in the early 1960s, my sister and another member of her sorority launched a national petition to the national headquarters urging them to drop their racist bylaws. She also participated in a peaceful demonstration against the "whites only" hiring practices of the largest employer in the college town. I've always thought my sister deserved some sort of honor for opposing racial discrimination; but the JBS's response was to hold a press conference to falsely accuse my sister of being a Communist, which only shows the true colors of the JBS. Ted Cruz has publicly declared that one of his biggest heroes is the late Jesse Helms, who was a leading segregationist politician. I could go on and on.

Unfortunately, I would have to violate my conscience to vote for candidates of either party. I differ with liberals over several leading issues, about which there is no point in my discussing them here because most people's minds are already made up.

I'm not at all optimistic about this country's political future. I fear that sooner or later this country is going to experience a decades-long period of reaction in which social Darwinism will become the norm across the board.
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 23 Feb, 2016 03:56 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
I'm not at all optimistic about this country's political future. I fear that sooner or later this country is going to experience a decades-long period of reaction in which social Darwinism will become the norm across the board.

I think most of us perceive tendencies in that direction. But I'd argue that our guard against this is our institutions, as faulty as they may be. Western culture and western nations have a lot to answer for but we do enjoy an unusual level of stability, prosperity and personal liberty and we have arrived at this fortunate state through our courts, our laws, our governmental agencies, etc.

The social darwinian threats entail a rejection of or a reduction in effectiveness of such institutions. That's the target of the Bircher ideology, yes? The Koch boys (along with the Scaifes, Bradleys, Coors, DeVos families, etc) seek to disempower the institutions built up precisely to ameliorate the grab for authoritarian power which those people seek.

You can, of course, not vote if that's your choice. And obviously a single vote isn't going to matter. But if many in the electorate fall to that cynicism, then it will matter. The bad guys become more free to work their will.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 23 Feb, 2016 07:55 pm
"At Brookings William Galston sheds light on the ideological value that undergird's Trump's enduring strength among Republican voters in opinion polls: "Trump enjoys a large advantage in public support, moreover, despite ranking at or near the bottom on most of the personal characteristics that voters value in prospective presidents--honesty and trustworthiness, caring about people's needs and problems, sharing their values, and having the right experience. He leads in only one area--strong leadership qualities. It speaks volumes about the current mood among Republicans that the desire for strength appears strong enough to trump all other considerations, even among voters who prize piety and humility." http://bit.ly/1RlVsOC

Could it be that a very significant sector of the Republican base is not merely attuned by personality factors to authoritarianism but has been trained to to place its hope there?

What happens when a large segment of a population is told daily or has it suggested daily that "compromise is date-rape"? What will happen when this segment is repeatedly encouraged towards a severe tribal identity which holds, axiomatically, that the other tribe represents values and ideas which are fundamentally illegitimate, even ungodly and therefore inevitably destructive? What are the consequences when they are told over and over and then come to believe that the greatest existential threats to them and to their tribe and to the nation itself arise from within the hearts and minds of their own neighbors?

And what if they are told and then shown, by repeated examples, that representative government does not work for them? That it cannot work for them because the nature of government is coercion?

Would it not seem likely or perhaps even probable that such a view of things would lead many to deem that the only real hope for the future lies in some extremely powerful authority figure who sits outside the mainstream mechanics and notions of governance and who will move to set those processes and values and traditions aside?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:53 am
http://images.dailykos.com/images/205095/story_image/HILLY-V-BERNIE-DONORS.png?1454626911
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:54 am
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/012/668/ee4.jpg
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:55 am
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=HS.283752938240&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:56 am
http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bernie-v-hillary-income-25-34-katie.jpg
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 07:20 am
Many Americans like idea of 'Medicare for all,' but support drops when they learn more details

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/3506735/2147483647/thumbnail/640x640%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F7a%2F7cc61e1d3ad81834ee44dd3686ba03%2Fmedia%3A507015cd0d2c4bd9a8f34b91f1ba66a6APPOLLSANDERSHEALTHCARE.JPEG
Kolyo
 
  2  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:32 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
That's about as unscientific as surveys get. It's clear from those data that they hardly interviewed anyone in the 150k+ range. My guess would be they interviewed 2 people in that income range. "Of the people we surveyed, 1 of 2 supported Hillary, and none -- oh, excuse me, NEITHER -- supported Sanders."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 25 Feb, 2016 06:41 pm
@revelette2,
I think location makes a big difference. In our case, I had Kaiser while working, and now have Kaiser under Medicare. Kaiser Hospital is only one block from where we live. For us, I wouldn't have it any other way. Many of the doctors were trained at Stanford and USF. We get the best of care.
Stanford is ranked #2 best medical school.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 04:49:02