KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

thetaxmancometh · 33606

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #300 on: July 13, 2016, 03:24:16 AM
The interesting thing about the article is that it asserts that there is one clear difference between Hillary and most male politicians.  She actually listens to people instead of talking at them.



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1722/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #301 on: July 13, 2016, 07:50:43 PM
Will be interesting to see how many of Sander's supporters join Hillary.  I think Sanders could have made the Democratic Convention much more interesting by waiting until then to endorse her.  Least he admits that the middle class in America is a vanishing species.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Piper-Dreams

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,293
    • Woos/Boos: +25/-0
    • Gender: Female
  • Meow
Reply #302 on: July 13, 2016, 07:54:07 PM
I disagree.  Electing a narcissistic bully is a recipe for disaster.  He has praised both the Korean dictator and Saddam Hussein for how they keep/kept order.  That is some scary shit!

Honestly he was right with Saddam. The guy was brutal but he understand how to keep the peace. Taking him out of power didn't benefit anyone at all.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #303 on: July 13, 2016, 10:01:36 PM
Including killing 50,000 Kurds?  Women and children were gassed by chemical weapons.

They are hardly terrorists and have been a key US ally and have worked hard to keep ISIS in check. 



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #304 on: July 14, 2016, 08:54:42 PM


This editorial from this morning's NY Times perfectly explains why I don't like Hillary Clinton:


What Clinton Should Have Said About Race

On Wednesday, speaking on the same site where Abraham Lincoln delivered his “House Divided” speech just over 150 years ago, Hillary Clinton addressed race in a very modern fashion: by calling for a “conversation,” with the goal of bringing us all together. Fifty years ago the proactive approach to race was considered to be legislation; today it is considered enlightened to call for a kind of abstract discourse. The problem is that this conception of a race “conversation” has never added up to anything real.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech lacked some of the rhetorical verve of President Obama’s recent speech in Dallas, but her withering deconstruction of Donald J. Trump was one of the few times I have seen her seem to truly speak from the heart. Her contempt for the man was plain and real: “Donald Trump’s campaign adds up to an ugly, dangerous message to America. A message that you should be afraid.”

I wish there had been more of that incisiveness in her thoughts on race. We need to listen to one another, she said, “we” being, presumably, whites and blacks.

Talking isn’t nothing, and there’s a place for dialogue. It mattered that in her speech Mrs. Clinton apologized, albeit indirectly, for using the term “superpredator” a quarter-century ago.

But it was hard not to notice that her idea of a “conversation” is rather one directional: What she thinks we need to listen to is what most would consider the “black” side of things. We should listen to black families on having to counsel their boys to be extra careful in interactions with the police, to Black Lives Matter. We should listen to the police as well, she said — but notably, here Mrs. Clinton specified the five officers killed in Dallas protecting protesters, seeming to exclude cops generally.

All of this is good advice, but it leaves out quite a bit. If they were asked, many cops would say that they felt threatened, and even abused, in the dangerous neighborhoods — quite often black ones — where they are assigned. Other people would observe that white men are killed by cops as well, even though the national media rarely covers them. In general, in a real conversation on race, quite a few whites would probably complain that they were weary of being called racists, or disapprove of affirmative action, or think we exaggerate the harm of the Confederate battle flag.

To the extent that a call for a “conversation” on race omits mention of views like these, in favor of the idea that the conversation will “unite” us, it implies that these controversial views will be corrected (or silenced), that they will inevitably melt away in the face of logic or morality if only we all sit down and converse respectfully. Mrs. Clinton allowed that the conversation would be “hard,” mind you — but the thrust of her point is that America needs to take a deep breath and hear black America out.

That approach worries me because our leaders have been calling for precisely such a discussion for the past 50 years, unsuccessfully — and I am unaware of any new argumentational techniques that would change that. We need only recall Bill Clinton’s national “dialogue” on race. Did it change anything? As Mrs. Clinton herself said last year, “I don’t believe you change hearts, I believe you change laws. You change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

What, even, would the form of this conversation be? Editorials? Panels? Reports? “Hamilton”? Even the last, which Mrs. Clinton encouraged her audience to listen to, won’t prevent more Alton Sterlings, or get an ex-con back into mainstream life.

Mrs. Clinton is trying to win an election, and it isn’t the time for novelty or tilting at windmills. But she has said herself that we must change both laws and attitudes. If she is serious about dedicating her first 100 days to getting work for underserved people, then policies — not conversations — would do much more to prepare black America to take advantage of those opportunities.

What if, instead of calling for a conversation, Mrs. Clinton had called for revitalized support for vocational schooling to help get poor black people into solid jobs that don’t require a college degree? Or an end to the war on drugs, which furnishes a black market that tempts underserved black men away from legal work. Or ensuring cheap, universal access to long-acting reversible contraceptives, to help poor women (who praise these devices) control when they start families. Or phonics-based reading programs, which are proved to be the key to teaching poor kids how to read. All poor black kids should have access to them just as they get free breakfasts.

These narrow policy proposals may not have the emotional reach of a conversation, and in and of themselves they will not stop the next Philando Castile either. But they would do more for black America than any amount of formulaic dialogues, or exploring the subtle contours of whites’ inner feelings about black people. Maybe there could be compromise: Let’s have a national conversation, but make it about legislation, not feelings.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/opinion/what-clinton-should-have-said-about-race.html?emc=edit_th_20160714&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=2503576




« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 08:56:28 PM by MissBarbara »


"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Levorotatory

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 359
    • Woos/Boos: +19/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #305 on: July 14, 2016, 11:45:20 PM
What isn't said directly in the editorial, but is implied, is that the problem is not so much racism as it is income inequality.  How many times have police been called racist when they actually bully all poor people equally?



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #306 on: July 15, 2016, 02:18:33 AM
  If Hillary has a solution to bring employment to minority neighborhoods, and it takes only 100 Days to get it accomplished, why wait? Hillary can bring this new and unique solution to the President, and we can begin the process right now! Why wait another 6 months to begin a 100 Day solution?

  Surely this wonderful plan, to be effective, will stand the test of revealing it right now, and beginning the process right now, so that by October 22, 2016, the American people will see the results, and the economy can be saved this year...

  Why wait?

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #307 on: July 15, 2016, 03:24:10 AM
Congress will still obstruct anything a Democratic president will try to do, that is why we need a Democratic sweep this election.



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #308 on: July 15, 2016, 03:26:39 AM

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline herschel

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,702
    • Woos/Boos: +222/-1
Reply #309 on: July 15, 2016, 05:49:39 AM
Racism is founded on ignorance, xenophobia, class division and the myth of white superiority, plus the feeling that the white establishment will look the other way, as we have seen in countless cases over the years of lynch mobs committing their depredations in broad daylight with never a one of them being charged with wrong-doing. the same way men get away with rape, even when they are brought to so-called justice. (Unless it is a case of a white woman being raped and saying it was a black man that did it, and then the law will find a black man somewhere and make sure he is either lynched or executed or sent up the river for life.)

So it's not like racism is a minor problem. Unless you put it in perspective with a hundred or more other serious national problems, all of which are so much scrubbed out of the 'national conversation' (what a farcical concept) we get from the New York Times and the other prostitute entities of the major media who serve as sheepdogs to corral and control the general populace, who serve mainly as the crucial resource to be exploited by Wall Street and big money in general.

Don't lose sight of a crucial distinction between big money and real people. Big money is organized as corporate power. Corporations don't believe in sin in the religious sense, but they do uniformly agree that the equivalent of 'thou shalt not steal, kill, covet, bear false witness, etc. in the corporate world is 'thou shalt not omit to bear false witness if it will make more money for our corporate minor deity, so say whatever you have to say, but get the money from the little people and get it into the corporate treasury. If you have to poison the environment to get the money, that's no sin. If you have to cluster bomb and land-mine and napalm and agent orange and accidentally spread radioactive cesium around or any of that kind of thing, that's okay as long as you do it to get money from the little people and sock it away in our treasury, that's okay. If you have to bear false witness to the people of our great land to convince them to send their sons to Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever and feel good about it, that's wonderfully patriotic as well as very profitable for our corporation. If you have to get your quisling lawyers to write national legislation to tilt the justice system in favor of our corporation, then take that to Washington and pay politicians millions of paper dollars to get them to put their seal of approval on it, that's not wrong, that's good business, so just fucking do  it.

This is the system that feels right to Hillary Clinton. That's why I don't like her.

Here are some proposals I would like to see added to the national conversation:

Bring George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their minions to trial before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

Repeal the Patriot Act.

Reverse Citizens United.

Declare a debt jubilee every ten years.

Outlaw usury, limit interest on all debt to 3%.

Outlaw civil forfeiture.

Repeal the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which empowers the POTUS to declare anyone at all an enemy of the state, to be seized and held and dealt with at the government's discretion, without charges, without trial, same as Stalin did.

Forbid anyone who has ever worked directly or indirectly for big Ag, big banking, big pharma, big chemical, big energy, big defense from sitting in any direct or indirect regulatory capacity in federal, state or municipal government.

Restore the gold standard.

Print enough paper dollars (the worthless kind, not backed by gold) and ship bales of funny money to pay off all holders of the national debt. Thereafter, forbid all forms of federal, state and municipal borrowing. If they need money, let the citizens have power to approve or disapprove the budget, and let the project be funded by a uniform tax on all the citizenry, including the corporations.

Pardon all the petty offenders to make room in the prison system for all the bankers who have gotten away with grand theft.

Of course with anti-usury laws and the gold standard, that will mean the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. Let them find honest jobs somewhere (not in government, though).

Bring back the Clayton Anti-trust act, and apply it to the big banks.

Tax every financial transaction at a rate of 1%. That will give the federal treasury all the money they need to insure pension funds and restore our national infrastructure.

I will stop there, but reserve the right to think of more ways to 'make America great again' without handing the job to Donald.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 12:29:51 AM by herschel »



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1722/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #310 on: July 15, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
A pretty sad state of affairs in this year's presidential election when voters are being polled and a majority respond that they would prefer another person to either Clinton or Trump.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline MintJulie

  • ~. Version Number 9.2.1 ~
  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 10,993
    • Woos/Boos: +1823/-23
    • Gender: Female
  • Madame Sheriff
Reply #311 on: July 15, 2016, 03:50:06 PM
A pretty sad state of affairs in this year's presidential election when voters are being polled and a majority respond that they would prefer another person to either Clinton or Trump.

I'm one of those people.

.
          You might not know this, but I have a thing for Tom Brady (and Bill Clinton)


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #312 on: July 15, 2016, 04:42:44 PM
I am still voting for Hillary. We survived one Clinton administration and the economy did rather well.  The economy seems to do much better under Democrats.

However, I'm not sure our Democracy would survive a Trump presidency.



Offline MintJulie

  • ~. Version Number 9.2.1 ~
  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 10,993
    • Woos/Boos: +1823/-23
    • Gender: Female
  • Madame Sheriff
Reply #313 on: July 15, 2016, 05:21:55 PM
I am still voting for Hillary. We survived one Clinton administration and the economy did rather well.  The economy seems to do much better under Democrats.

However, I'm not sure our Democracy would survive a Trump presidency.

As am I.    The key words earlier was "prefer another person".

There is no way in hell I'm voting for Mr Jackass.     If he gets elected, the 'crash and burn' image comes to mind.

.
          You might not know this, but I have a thing for Tom Brady (and Bill Clinton)


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #314 on: July 15, 2016, 10:08:55 PM

Racism is founded on ignorance, xenophobia, class division and the myth of white superiority, plus the feeling that the white establishment will look the other way, as we have seen in countless cases over the years of lynch mobs committing their depredations in broad daylight with never a one of them being charged with wrong-doing. the same way men get away with rape, even when they are brought to so-called justice. (Unless it is a case of a white woman being raped and saying it was a black man that did it, and then the law will find a black man somewhere and make sure he is either lynched or executed or sent up the river for life.)


I could go on at length pointing out the breathtaking inaccuracies (some of them bordering on ignorance) of those statements. But, to be brief:

"Racism is founded on...the myth of white superiority." -- So, only white people can be racist?

"We have seen in countless cases over the years of lynch mobs committing their depredations in broad daylight with never a one of them being charged with wrong-doing." -- Can you provide some examples of instances like you describe that have occurred within the last, say, 50 years?

"Unless it is a case of a white woman being raped and saying it was a black man that did it, and then the law will find a black man somewhere and make sure he is either lynched or executed or sent up the river for life." -- Again, any examples of this actually happening within the past 50 years?

"...the same way men get away with rape, even when they are brought to so-called justice." -- So, no men are ever convicted of rape?



So it's not like racism is a minor problem. Unless you put it in perspective with a hundred or more other serious national problems, all of which are so much scrubbed out of the 'national conversation' (what a farcical concept) we get from the New York Times and the other prostitute entities of the major media who serve as sheepdogs to corral and control the general populace, who serve mainly as the crucial resource to be exploited by Wall Street and big money in general.


Did you read the article? What the author proposes is the exact opposite of what you describe!

I think you'll find very few Americans who believe racism is a "minor problem." In fact, a poll released earlier in the week showed the overwhelming majority believes it's a major problem in the U.S. today.

On the plus side, I give you props for the wonderful turn-of-phrase, "...who serve as sheepdogs to corral and control the general populace."



Don't lose sight of a crucial distinction between big money and real people. Big money is organized as corporate power. Corporations don't believe in sin in the religious sense, but they do uniformly agree that the equivalent of 'thou shalt not steal, kill, covet, bear false witness, etc. in the corporate world is 'thou shalt not omit to bear false witness if it will make more money for our corporate minor deity, so say whatever you have to say, but get the money from the little people and get it into the corporate treasury. If you have to poison the environment to get the money, that's no sin. If you have to cluster bomb and land-mine and napalm and agent orange and accidentally spread radioactive cesium around or any of that kind of thing, that's okay as long as you do it to get money from the little people and sock it away in our treasury, that's okay. If you have to bear false witness to the people of our great land to convince them to send their sons to Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever and feel good about it, that's wonderfully patriotic as well as very profitable for our corporation. If you have to get your quisling lawyers to write national legislation to tilt the justice system in favor of our corporation, then take that to Washington and pay politicians millions of paper dollars to get them to put their seal of approval on it, that's not wrong, that's good business, so just fucking do it.


Interesting thoughts, and I agree with many of them.

Though "our sons" were sent to Vietnam over 40 years ago, and "our sons" who went to Afghanistan and/or Iraq were volunteers.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #315 on: July 15, 2016, 10:17:33 PM

Congress will still obstruct anything a Democratic president will try to do, that is why we need a Democratic sweep this election.


This has been the Left's mantra for most of Obama's term, and it's both a crutch, an excuse -- and patently false. There have been many, many pieces of legislation proposed by or supported by Obama that have become law. And don't forget that the Affordable Care Act passed with support from the GOP.

More to the point, do you honestly believe that Obama or Democrats should not propose legislation because it's probably going to be "obstructed" by the GOP. That's not leadership, that's excuse-making, or pusillanimity.

Moving back on topic, Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States. She's not applying for a job as a social worker, and she's not looking to get hired as a community organizer. She wants to be our Leader. Referring back to Toe's post, what's she going to do out of the starting gate? Have a conversation? Or, to put it most accurately, have a conversation about having a conversation? That's not leadership!

If some English professor can both put his finger directly on a problem, and then follow that up with proposals for intelligent and workable solutions, is it unreasonable of me to assume that someone running for president shouldn't do at least as much?






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #316 on: July 15, 2016, 10:59:02 PM
If Hillary Clinton, and if the Democratic Party has a agenda to SELL to the people, why would they fear making that agenda clear, in plain language, so as to win over more than the low information voters, current recipients of past and present Democrat Govenment handouts, and illegals* hopeful to game the Nation's existing laws as to Immigration.

Counting on actual Democrat voters to come to the polls on election day, to cast a ballot for someone they clearly do not like very much, who they know is not trust worthy from her recent and past actions, who treats 'commoners' as an annoyance she must endure to get the power and eventual money rewards she covets, is not a very strong position.

Why wait 6 to 7 months, if there is a plan that can work in 100 Days, for which the Democrat Voter and the majority of voters supposedly clamor?

Hillary, the broadcast and most general Media talking heads, the print/blog Press, all elected Democrats, the truth be damned, are expecting to win with no meaningful ideas.  We are hearing how bad the United States is now, 9 years after Democrats took the Congress, and ushered in Barack Obama, on a ticket of Hope and Change... they had a plan... why are things so miserable that we need the likes of Hillary Clinton to rescue us?

Good luck, Democrats, and hangers on... you will need it, methinks...

*(Illegal Aliens officially cannot vote, and Democrats are so strident to insure there is no meaningful I.D. requirement for most voters, little stops them, and other Party schemers, from stuffing the ballot boxes.)

As always, I can only gauge what is happening in the US by what I see in discussions online and read in the news, but a crude summary of the presidential race so far from my perspective is that Trump is winning the support of a particular portion of the electorate while Clinton is offered as the "lesser of two evils" option to the rest. I can see parallels between the current race and the race in 2008. "Make America great again" isn't any less meaningful than "yes we can" after all. My worry is that Clinton is never going to offer anything or inspire anyone and a low voter turnout will hand the win to Trump. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy the predictions of doomsday for American democracy if Trump is elected, I just feel he would be an awful representative of the American people on the global stage. For example, considering how tense relations are with North Korea right now, I could easily see a moronic comment sparking war if a pig-headed posturer like Trump was in the Oval Office.

I don't think Clinton is a bad candidate, I just think the Democrats as a party are failing to sell her candidacy so far. "Not as bad as the alternative" might be enough, when it comes to the vote, but it shouldn't be an acceptable standard and it's not a very solid foundation for leadership.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,206
    • Woos/Boos: +3195/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #317 on: July 15, 2016, 11:18:51 PM

As always, I can only gauge what is happening in the US by what I see in discussions online and read in the news, but a crude summary of the presidential race so far from my perspective is that Trump is winning the support of a particular portion of the electorate while Clinton is offered as the "lesser of two evils" option to the rest.


That's a fairly accurate summary.



My worry is that Clinton is never going to offer anything or inspire anyone and a low voter turnout will hand the win to Trump.


It's my worry as well. And, to blow my own horn, I've said as much in as many words several times here.



I don't think Clinton is a bad candidate, I just think the Democrats as a party are failing to sell her candidacy so far. "Not as bad as the alternative" might be enough, when it comes to the vote, but it shouldn't be an acceptable standard and it's not a very solid foundation for leadership.


Again, I agree.

Even here on KB, pro-Clinton posters seem to hold her chief selling point as "she's not Trump."

I find the whole "vote for the least worst candidate" thing very depressing.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



ChirpingGirl

  • Guest
Reply #318 on: July 15, 2016, 11:33:56 PM
Quote
Even here on KB, pro-Clinton posters seem to hold her chief selling point as "she's not Trump."

I find the whole "vote for the least worst candidate" thing very depressing.


I'm not voting for either of them. I don't want to be responsible for whatever they do. I always have this fear that what if my vote was the vote that got the person who starts world war 3 into office?



Offline JBRG

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 2,795
    • Woos/Boos: +247/-2
    • Gender: Male
Reply #319 on: July 15, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
Quote
Even here on KB, pro-Clinton posters seem to hold her chief selling point as "she's not Trump."

I find the whole "vote for the least worst candidate" thing very depressing.


I'm not voting for either of them. I don't want to be responsible for whatever they do. I always have this fear that what if my vote was the vote that got the person who starts world war 3 into office?


You are within your rights to think this way. But the opposite is what if the vote you did not cast results in the election of the person who starts WW 3.

If I were an American, I think I would be looking for "None of the Above" on the presidential ballot. My observations over the past 30 years suggests to me that Hillary is corrupt and Trump is a jackass.

That is all.