Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ms. Clinton represents everything that is wrong with career politicians and crony capitalism. She has made herself a multi-multi millionaire by taking payoffs from special interests including foreign governments to buy her political influence, has broken the law and lied about her classified emails, has exploited her power numerous times to be "above the law", panders to this identity politics group or that identity politics group and doesn't mention "all Americans", protected her sexual predator husband from his accusers by blaming "a right wing conspiracy"....
I could go on and on, but suffice to say she has a lack of character and ethics. I have complete disdain for this woman and will not support her with my vote.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 03-04-2016 at 03:26 PM..
Anyone that thinks they are 'progressive' but yet willing to let Trump or Cruz run the country ~ is NO progressive, IMO.
IF you are waiting on the perfect candidate - you will be waiting a long, long time.
IF you are fine with a conservative supreme court for the next 30 years - undoing all the social progress that we have made (and yes that matters to me) you are no progressive. I don't know if some of you are just not that bright or perhaps Republican trolls (yes, they are out there) but certainly no progressive. There are good people in this country who will NEVER vote for anything resembling 'socialism' so it is unfortunate that Bernie gave himself that title. We are not Denmark or Sweden; we are the USA. Capitalism does work with the right regulations. Bernie is not electable at this time. 10 years ~ 20 years from now ~ perhaps.
I gave up on the "lesser of two evils" argument decades ago, about the time Jimmy Carter started the Democratic Party on its march to the right. The American political system as currently structured is inherently corrupt. From campaign financing, to the fallacy of real choice at the ballot box. The Republicans and Democrats hold a duopoly of political power in The United States--with one party being sixty degrees to the right of center, and the other party being forty-five degrees to the right of center. The legitimate distinctions between the two overtly-capitalist political parties is minimal at best. Both serve the same masters, and it isn't the middle or working classes.
My preference would have been for Sanders to run as an independent--I still hope he changes his mind and does so after the Democrats shaft him. It's the classic case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. We've already seen the way The DNC has attempted to sabotage Sanders at almost every juncture. We've seen the Clinton machine send its sycophantic endorsers after Sanders. We've seen the pro-Clinton mainstream media play its role in maintaining the status quo.
To see just where Hillary Clinton falls among the other candidates, here is a link to The Political Compass chart for 2016 Presidential Primary candidates:
For those unfamiliar with The Political Compass, it measures candidates on both a left/right political axis, and on an authoritarian/libertarian axis in regards to personal liberty. As you can see on the chart, Clinton is virtually identical to the Republican candidates on the left/right axis, and she is only slightly less authoritarian in her outlook. Sanders is a little bit to the left of center, and he straddles the line between authoritarian and libertarian. Hillary Clinton joins all of the Republican candidates in the upper-right quadrant--the quadrant representing candidates furthest to the right and most authoritarian.
Once again, Sanders is not a socialist. He is a progressive capitalist who I think sincerely wants to reform America's economic system. Since I don't believe capitalism can be reformed, I hardly consider Sanders to be a "perfect candidate", but he is a legitimate move in the right direction. As for electability, virtually all polling shows that it is Sanders who beats any of the Republicans candidates in a general election, while Clinton is in a virtual tie with Trump and would easily lose to Cruz or Rubio.
I would never describe myself as being a "progressive". I'm a socialist who does believe that progressivism can serve as an incremental means of getting beyond the particularly psychopathic form of capitalism represented by the Republican candidates and by Hillary Clinton. You can go on defining people who disagree with your willingness to settle for a candidate who bears little distinction from the other neocons as being "not that bright" or as being "Republican trolls", but many of us simply aren't inclined to drink the Hillary kool aid being sold by The Democratic Party machine.
I gave up on the "lesser of two evils" argument decades ago, about the time Jimmy Carter started the Democratic Party on its march to the right. The American political system as currently structured is inherently corrupt. From campaign financing, to the fallacy of real choice at the ballot box. The Republicans and Democrats hold a duopoly of political power in The United States--with one party being sixty degrees to the right of center, and the other party being forty-five degrees to the right of center. The legitimate distinctions between the two overtly-capitalist political parties is minimal at best. Both serve the same masters, and it isn't the middle or working classes.
My preference would have been for Sanders to run as an independent--I still hope he changes his mind and does so after the Democrats shaft him. It's the classic case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. We've already seen the way The DNC has attempted to sabotage Sanders at almost every juncture. We've seen the Clinton machine send its sycophantic endorsers after Sanders. We've seen the pro-Clinton mainstream media play its role in maintaining the status quo.
To see just where Hillary Clinton falls among the other candidates, here is a link to The Political Compass chart for 2016 Presidential Primary candidates:
For those unfamiliar with The Political Compass, it measures candidates on both a left/right political axis, and on an authoritarian/libertarian axis in regards to personal liberty. As you can see on the chart, Clinton is virtually identical to the Republican candidates on the left/right axis, and she is only slightly less authoritarian in her outlook. Sanders is a little bit to the left of center, and he straddles the line between authoritarian and libertarian. Hillary Clinton joins all of the Republican candidates in the upper-right quadrant--the quadrant representing candidates furthest to the right and most authoritarian.
Once again, Sanders is not a socialist. He is a progressive capitalist who I think sincerely wants to reform America's economic system. Since I don't believe capitalism can be reformed, I hardly consider Sanders to be a "perfect candidate", but he is a legitimate move in the right direction. As for electability, virtually all polling shows that it is Sanders who beats any of the Republicans candidates in a general election, while Clinton is in a virtual tie with Trump and would easily lose to Cruz or Rubio.
I would never describe myself as being a "progressive". I'm a socialist who does believe that progressivism can serve as an incremental means of getting beyond the particularly psychopathic form of capitalism represented by the Republican candidates and by Hillary Clinton. You can go on defining people who disagree with your willingness to settle for a candidate who bears little distinction from the other neocons as being "not that bright" or as being "Republican trolls", but many of us simply aren't inclined to drink the Hillary kool aid being sold by The Democratic Party machine.
Then avail yourself of President Trump and live with the consequences.
There are too many people who will NEVER identify with Sanders because he identified himself as a 'Democratic Socialist'. Do you understand that a large portion of the country hear only the word 'socialist'?
That is all they need to hear to turn them off. Specifically Republicans who would consider crossing over and right-leaning independents.
And, YES, there are Republican trolls attempting to divide the party on most social media. I did not specifically point to you. Don't be so self-absorbed.
Good lord. This family can't even have a baby without someone judging them. How petty.
How would YOUR life stand up to the scrutiny they have had for 40 years? You are rewarding 25 years of the Republican smear campaign.
Um, they can have as many babies as they want but you cannot deny the obvious similarities between when Chelsea inexplicably debuted her baby to the way the Duchess of Cambridge debuted the future king. Painfully similar. Embarrassingly so. It is not "petty" to point that out - and I'm not the first one to do so, either. There were articles in the news and tabloids about the similarities when Chelsea did it, including side by side pictures for comparison between Chelsea and Kate. She wore the same color dress. Had her hair blown out straight. Walked out the doors and down the steps with her baby in her arms just like Kate, for a photo op. Seriously it was so similar. I can't imagine it was done by accident.
What are you even talking about in that second part of your post?
Um, they can have as many babies as they want but you cannot deny the obvious similarities between when Chelsea inexplicably debuted her baby to the way the Duchess of Cambridge debuted the future king. Painfully similar. Embarrassingly so. It is not "petty" to point that out - and I'm not the first one to do so, either. There were articles in the news and tabloids about the similarities when Chelsea did it, including side by side pictures for comparison between Chelsea and Kate. She wore the same color dress. Had her hair blown out straight. Walked out the doors and down the steps with her baby in her arms just like Kate, for a photo op. Seriously it was so similar. I can't imagine it was done by accident.
What are you even talking about in that second part of your post?
It IS petty and no, I found no similarities with the London Royals. Please. If she walked out in a sackcloth and ashes ~ you would find something wrong with it.
I won't just vote for somebody because they are one of our 2 more visible choices this time. I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican in 20 years. I look at the other less visible parties as well. If one of them says things that I like, I vote for them. If not, well, there's always another "most important election of our lifetime" coming 'round the bend.
It IS petty and no, I found no similarities with the London Royals. Please. If she walked out in a sackcloth and ashes ~ you would find something wrong with it.
No similarities? You must live under a rock. Here, I'll do some work for you. They include side by side pictures, so you can remind yourself what each new mother looked like a few years ago when they debuted their babies - one mother, a future Queen following royal protocol, and another, an American whose dad was president and mom Secretary of State, not following any type of protocol. It's okay, many probably have forgotten by now, but here's a reminder for you (actually many):
The glowing new mom, 34, emerged from New York City's Lenox Hill Hospital on Monday evening cradling her newborn daughter, Charlotte, in a printed aquamarine short-sleeved dress and fresh blowout. She polished off her new mom look with a set of green flats and her happy husband, Marc Mezvinksy beside her. Sound familiar?
Kate Middleton received widespread praise for her ensemble as she exited St. Mary's Hospital in London in July 2013 carrying newborn, Prince George. Middleton donned a custom-made Jenny Packham baby blue polka dot shift dress and a softly-style mane for her and George's big debut.
Intentionally or not Clinton and Mezvinksy looked nearly identical to the royal family."
How "petty" of the media. How dare they accuse the Great Chelsea Clinton, daughter of the Great Bill and Wonderful Hillary, of resembling the Duchess of Cambridge and baby Prince, future King George Louis. Not the same thing at all! I'm sure it was a total coincidence!
Look, I don't care what the Clintons do in their private time - but this clearly mirrored the royal family. And I thought it was pathetic. It wasn't just leaving the hospital with the baby in her arms all casually, it was wearing a blue dress like Kate, having her hair and makeup impeccable, it was debuting the baby as if their baby is important an not just another average American baby born that day. Her husband at her side, both beaming and waving for the cameras. Her parents right behind her, the same. Coming out a side door right onto the NYC sidewalk. As if everyone cares as much as they care about a future king (if anyone really even cares that much about the future king, especially over here). The second I saw these pictures in the media, I thought - hey, that reminds me of something...
I get that they were happy and excited and proud - and they should be. But it so pathetically resembled the royal family and how they debut their babies, debuting actual royalty. The Clintons are no royalty. Her baby is genuinely no more important than anyone else's - so why the special debut reminiscent of Kate and George? Down to the dress color?
Why do you assume I would have a problem if she walked out in a "sackcloth and ashes"? I would have had no problem if she just quietly left the hospital like any normal new mom, but no. She had to make it a whole spectacle reminiscent of what royalty does - it's tacky. That's why I have a problem with it. It's tacky. And painfully obvious despite you claiming to not see any similarities. If Jenna Bush did the same thing as Chelsea, I would still say it's tacky. It's tacky to debut an American baby born into a political family the same way they debut the future king and any princes and princesses.
I won't just vote for somebody because they are one of our 2 more visible choices this time. I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican in 20 years. I look at the other less visible parties as well. If one of them says things that I like, I vote for them. If not, well, there's always another "most important election of our lifetime" coming 'round the bend.
Then you are certainly not machiavellian in your decision making. Fine with me, onless you hold animosity towards those who are machiavellian ?
My major concern with Hillary is her policies may not focus on the best interest of the American people and that best economic position. It seem the issue of most concern is economics today.
No similarities? You must live under a rock. Here, I'll do some work for you. They include side by side pictures, so you can remind yourself what each new mother looked like a few years ago when they debuted their babies
LOLOL!! Chelsea holds her new baby while wearing a blue dress and her usual hair style, and all the celebrity tabloid sites think there's a conspiracy!! Someone must have kicked over that rock THEY all live under ..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
