When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The divided Republican House does its share in promoting gridlock, but during the past eight years it was mostly Presidential vetos and Harry Reid's refusal to bring legislation passed by the House even to a vote in the Senate , that drove this problem.

That is an interesting argument since the last few Congress have had some of the fewest number of pieces of legislation actually voted on and passed by the House since 1973. (The period that govtrack keeps data for.) But those damn facts are pedantic things, aren't they george? The current Senate under McConnell is on pace to vote on a lower percentage House bills than any Senate under Reid and a lower number of pieces of legislation total.

There were 9 Presidential vetoes by Obama in the last 8 years. Hardly a large number , Reagan had 54 vetoes in 8 years. GHW Bush had 43 in only 4 years, Clinton had 35 in 8 years. I don't think you can blame the lack of legislation on Presidential vetoes. But then, I guess that's me being "pedantic" again by pointing out actual facts.

3 Replies

@parados,

Thank you Parados

0 Replies

@parados,

Not only a Thank You to parados, but BRAVO!

0 Replies

@parados,

Actually, I guess I should have just found a source on vetoes rather than trying to get the numbers from govtrack's legislation page.

Obama is going to have the fewest vetoes since Warren G Harding.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

2 Replies

@parados,

Well, that destroys the GOP's argument they're not responsible for legislative gridlock. Great job, Parados.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I really want to see a careful analysis from political scientists backing up that claim, george. I really do.

What exactly is a "political scientist"? Are you one? Parados specializes in zeroing in on any favoravble single element of a question and implying, usually without evidence or comment,and often deceptively that it speaks for the whole. He did note the low number of bills submitted to the president, but failed to adress the either the cause for that or or the relative fractions vetoed. More to the point during his first term Harry Reid substantially eliminated the necessity of vetos by refusing to call votes at all in the Senate by legislation passed by the House by the Rpublican Majority there. Parados offered no quantification there. In the first term Obamacare was passed without a single Republican Vote in the House of Representatives and no negotiations with the minority party relative to its contents. That set the stage for all that followed. The divided Republican House did its part as well.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Compare it to the homes of Clinton, Trump and other Senators. Still flies coach, still lives modestly.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yes. Her charitable donation was to herself.

You know the Clintons are getting paid for political favors, a euphemism for speeches.

1 Reply

http://m.timesofindia.com/us-elections-2016/Funding-of-Clinton-charity-comes-under-Bharara-lens/articleshow/53690882.cms

Bloodthirsty Indian lawyer looking at Hillary's mess.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

What exactly is a "political scientist"? Are you one?

So, george. There's no such thing as a political scientist? No such thing as scholarship in the field of American politics? That's such a pathetic dodge, particularly after making claims for which you cite no one and nothing.

Here's two political scientists, one with AEI and the other with Brookings. If you are not interested in learning, don't bother with this. If you are adamant about holding your fixed ideas, don't bother with this. And if that is the case, I see no reason why anyone here ought to bother engaging you on this matter from here on out.
http://bloom.bg/2beq2NO

3 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
What exactly is a "political scientist"? Are you one?

So, george. There's no such thing as a political scientist? No such thing as scholarship in the field of American politics?

Now, you know that isn't what he said (asked).

1 Reply

@blatham,

Not are all. There are historians, ststisticians, political commentators etc. but I believe the term scientist is a deceptive affectation in areas such as politics sociology and even economics. History is an art that goes back to Heroditus and Thucydidies, but they and their contemporary peers (there are few) don't style themselves as scientists either. Science ivolves the study of observable features of nature that are presumably subject to deterministic laws and which involve or at least permit verifiable hypotheses. The subjects I listed don't meet that test, precisely because they involve subjective aspects of mass human behavior, the observation of which is also subjective in its nature. They are definable areas of study to be sure, but they are not science.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

but they are not science.

That's another dodge. Do you wish to pronounce that nothing in the area of politics, history, statistics etc is worthy of any attention at all because nothing in it is verifiable or knowable?

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

Now, you know that isn't what he said (asked).

Attend to his last post and any further posts he might make on this.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
but they are not science.

That's another dodge. Do you wish to pronounce that nothing in the area of politics, history, statistics etc is worthy of any attention at all because nothing in it is verifiable or knowable?

I didn't say or imply that at all. I enjoy history and believe it is indeed an important and worthy area of study, as are its subsets, politics, economics and some aspects of social studies - every bit as worthy as is science.

However none of them are sciences, and those who, disingenuously in my view, adopt that misleading label do so as an affectation to make up for the lack of scholarly depth in what they do, and to somehow gain more respect than is their due. I believe that is particularly true of those in the so-called political and social "sciences". Marxist scholars described themselves as masters of the "science" of human history and its inevitable progress towards their supposed foreordained socialist nirvanah. Hiostory proved them wrong on all counts (or as we used to say in Naval Aviation, WEFT , = wrong every ******* time.) It turned out to be no science at all, and its true believers even refused to acknowledge the verifiable facts that confirmed its failures, and their own complete lack of scientific respect for actual results. Nonetheless the dreaming continues under other labels.

1 Reply

https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

the next week

August 15, 2016 Scranton, Pennsylvania Organizing Event Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden

August 15, 2016 Asheville, North Carolina Organizing Event Tim Kaine

August 15, 2016 Denver, Colorado Fundraiser Robby Mook

August 15, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Atlanta for45

August 16, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Voter Registration Event Hillary Clinton

August 16, 2016 Fayetteville, North Carolina Organizing Event Tim Kaine

August 17, 2016 Cleveland, Ohio Organizing Event Hillary Clinton

August 17, 2016 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Organizing Event Tim Kaine

August 18, 2016 Bozeman, Montana Fundraiser Jennifer Garner

__

good to see Mr. Biden's getting out there

I'm seeing a fair bit of coverage for Mr. Kaine. He seems like a popular, likable guy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who wouldn't want to be paid quarter of a million dollars for a speech? That people are willing to pay Hillary that kind of money is not a crime.

That may be true, but it clearly is a crime for her to take it in there is anything they want in return. The evidence of that in many circumstances is very persuasive.

0 Replies

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/how-many-jobs-could-your-state-gain-or-lose-under-hillary-clinton-or-donald-trump/

Quote:

Hillary Clinton has an ambitious plan for her first 100 days as president—and it includes the boldest investment in jobs since WWII.

According to analysis by independent economist Mark Zandi (a former advisor to John McCain), the U.S. economy would create more than 10 million jobs under Hillary’s policies in her first term alone.

The same economist found that Donald Trump’s policies would lead to a loss of nearly 3.5 million jobs.

breakdown at the link

1 Reply

Quote:

The evidence of that in many circumstances is very persuasive.

Don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure like to see some of that evidence.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

The forecast of such "planners" are notoriously wrong. Remember Obama's "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs eight years ago? What we saw instead was zero effective investment in infrastructure, near zero net job creation due to the program in the slowest recovery from a recession since WWII, driven by a vast expansion in government regulation that stifled investment and job creation. However the useless state bureaucracies that got the money got to feed their drones.

3 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know