I like how you open with an objection to being called frothing with venom, then post that.
Also, if you are having a rage-stroke about socialism, you probably aren’t a moderate.
I stand corrected and support Cecil’s fight against ignorance.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
I like how you open with an objection to being called frothing with venom, then post that.
Also, if you are having a rage-stroke about socialism, you probably aren’t a moderate.
[/QUOTE]
Not a rage-stroke per se. Some of the right wingers that I encounter live in abject fear of both the Clintons and socialism. I do not root for socialism but I do not fear it like some factions of the right winger crowd whom with I also generally disagree on many issues. The greatest thing about Obama is that he defeated HRC. I may disagree with Obama (or O’Bama) on some positions, but he did this country a great favor by preventing the HRC nomination in '08. The GOP was going to get stomped that year regardless of the nominee after the 8 years of Dubya.
I predict that Hillary will lose the nomination and the reason I predict this is because she is a lousy candidate not because of the degree of socialist tendencies or lack thereof. She is a horrible candidate regardless of political views. An out of touch phony politician is bad news whether the name is Romney, Bush, or Clinton.
Bill actually governed for eight years as a center-right DLC DINO. That goes way beyond “coy,” it is solid real-world proof that he never had any socialist leanings at all. And what reason do you have to think Hillary would govern any further to the left than Bill did? Please give me a reason, please do, because that is a thing I am desperately eager to believe; at present, I have little hope that there is any point to voting for her beyond keeping the Pubs out of the WH – which is more than sufficient reason.
[/QUOTE]
I am reluctant to even respond to this as the method of thinking is just foreign to me. I had to catch my breath after reading this. I respect opinions, but I had not encountered this one in the past. Please, vote for Clinton if that’s your favorite candidate, but it is alarmingly misleading to characterize the Bill Clinton presidency as a period of center-right DLC DINO policy. IMHO, the Clintons were hard leftists during the first 2 years and parading as moderate wannabes during the following 6 years. The GOP controlled congress was psychotic then almost as much as today and these right wing idiots only gain power in modern times when Dems scare everybody at or near the middle with their leftist tendencies…chiefly 1994 and 2010. The Clintons were center-right? really? I just had not encountered that perspective. I do not wish to change your mind, but the view is confusing to me.
Welfare reform, trade deals, and the Clinton’s tough-on-crime stuff were center-right policies. Others were center-left (like taxes) and centrist (too many to count).
Not according to the polling – she still polls pretty strongly. If it was a “disaster”, she’d be in serious trouble per the polls.
I might prefer Sanders or O’Malley (not sure about Webb), but I’ll vote for HRC if she wins the nomination because the Republicans would be so, so much worse. As little as I trust Hillary’s honesty, the Republicans (the ones running, at least) are even less honest. And their policies would be far, far worse for America and Americans.
Surely he didn’t mean that. Did he?
He did, and the result was budget surpluses and the Fed chair warning of “irrational exuberance”.
But what do you base it on?
See post #36.
Why? In what way was he preferable to her? What would she have done differently than he has done over the past six years?
During the primary, she wanted people to pay for the ACA, he did not.
Why do some people hate her with such intensity? My Wife does, but cannot explain why. At least we can stay home and mess around on election day, our votes canceling each other. 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
It is my opinion that she’s a socialist wearing a more moderate mask. . . .
Clinton is probably a raving socialist parading as socialism lite IMHO. It’s an opinion and doesn’t bother me if anyone disagrees.
[/QUOTE]
But what do you base it on?
See post #36.
[/QUOTE]
I base it on her words during the pre-1995 era and then again after the recent (roughly 2013 to present) lurch back leftward: “You know that old theory…trickle down economics…<pause>. * That has been tried. That has failed.*” -HRC at a Martha Coakley campaign event. That’s just one example.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why? In what way was he preferable to her? What would she have done differently than he has done over the past six years?
[/QUOTE]
She is ruthless, phony, and calculated IMHO way more than Obama. It’s difficult to predict what she would have been like as prez 2009-present and I hate to think about it. Any answer to this would be hypothetical. Even Obama’s pro-SEIU speeches are to the right of Clinton. Also, her gaffes are far more cringe-inducing than Obama.
I agree with your descriptions here but I likely have a different impression of the Clintons’ motives. The Clintons had to give the impression of shifting rightward after '94 because it was the only viable option to stay in power longer term after the HillaryCare scare. Politics takes priority for them. At least one of them has been in power (as prez, cabinet member, Senator) in national politics from '92 until HRC stepped down as Secretary of State. Bill Clinton even signed the repeal of the Glass-Seagal Act, i.e. quite a right wingish move but that setup the financial crisis at the end of the Bush admin…Did he sign that repeal but he’s actually far to the left? The plan would’ve worked on time if Obama didn’t intervene in '08.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
I might prefer Sanders or O’Malley (not sure about Webb), but I’ll vote for HRC if she wins the nomination because the Republicans would be so, so much worse. As little as I trust Hillary’s honesty, the Republicans (the ones running, at least) are even less honest. And their policies would be far, far worse for America and Americans.
[/QUOTE]
IMHO, Some of the GOP candidates probably would be almost as bad as or worse than Hillary. I wish either or both parties would nominate a decent leader or, if not, at least get crazy enough for a 3rd party to surge in the centrist middle.
So saying what is plainly clear to everyone in the entire country makes her a raving socialist?
It would not surprise me at all if Hillary was more left-ish in her younger years. Especially before she actually entered politics. I sort of appreciate what Matt Bai says today:
This was in relation to the Trans Pacific Trade deal, which he claims:
But about which she seems unwilling to take a stand on now.
You can expect to hear Saul Alinsky’s name mentioned even more often in this Republican campaign. But still not with an explanation as to who he was or what he stood for; it’s still going to be as if the name alone had sufficient talismanic value.
She’s kind of between a rock and a hard place. It’s hard to come off overly critical of Obama; never mind she will need his help, it just doesn’t look good for the prospective nominee to be overly critical of the sitting president of the same party.
And of course backing it can have negative repercussions in her campaign as well.
I support in the primary every single candidate who opposes Clinton. I wish Bernie would run attack ads but he has already promised not to do so since he may be in cahoots with the Clintons or he may just be trying to demonstrate his ability to not be politics-as-usual. Hopefully, some anti-Hillary right wing groups pitch $$$ into some pro-Bernie superPACs to fill the void sort like they did for some Green Party candidates in a few local elections.
So saying what is plainly clear to everyone in the entire country makes her a raving socialist?
[/QUOTE]
What aspect of her statement is ‘plainly clear’? Without ‘trickle down economics’ we get more trickling through government bureaucrats who clearly have demonstrated their fiscal inefficiencies in recent decades. Are we better off with a centralized command economy to a greater degree than we already are?
It’s the trickle omni-directional flow of money to DC coming from all directions that has failed. I’m talking primarily about lobbying fees moreso than taxes. Did it feel it like a recession in DC during 2008-2009? The Glass-Steagal Act got repealed during the Bill Clinton + GOP congress era of the late 90s because of lobbying influence rather than ideology.
FDR was a big government liberal, but at least his administration spent comparatively wisely. FDR saved this country from socialism IMO, although I would’nt’ve agreed with him on some decisions and rhetoric had I been alive at that time.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It would not surprise me at all if Hillary was more left-ish in her younger years.
[/QUOTE]
She was more vocal about it in her younger years. It’s a matter of opinion and perspective when and how (or if) her views have actually changed through the years.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I sort of appreciate what Matt Bai says today:
[QUOTE=Matt Bai]
Seriously, we already know what she thought about the trade deal that Democrats just effectively blocked in the Senate — at least right up until the moment she announced her candidacy. As secretary of state (a rather important position when it comes to global affairs), she called it the “gold standard” of trade deals. She lobbied for it overseas, without giving any sense that she was crossing her fingers behind her back.
[/QUOTE]
This was in relation to the Trans Pacific Trade deal, which he claims:
[QUOTE=Matt Bai]
As it is, voters could be forgiven for wondering if, after almost 25 years on the national stage, Clinton doesn’t really know what she believes anymore, or at least doesn’t know how to articulate conviction without going through a complex process of calibration first.
[/QUOTE]
But about which she seems unwilling to take a stand on now.
[/QUOTE]
I sort of appreciate what Matt Bai says here, too. Hillary is a phony and this yet another glaring hypocrisy. I disagree with his assertion: “Clinton doesn’t really know what she believes…”. She knows what she believes but it takes a calculated effort to calibrate her public image. HRC believes in doing anything to promote her own power. Promoting that trade deal was an important aspect of her own self-interests, but she calculates that she must coyly and quietly back away from it since bringing attention to it will not help her right now. Will Bernie call her out? Probably not in an ad but there will be debates.
It’s shocking that so many self-proclaimed liberals admire the Clintons. I can at least understand and appreciate the Dems who admire Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren even those politicians are far more liberal than I am.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
[QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation]
Did you pay any attention to the 2014 book tour of “dead broke” Hillary Clinton? That was a disaster IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
Not according to the polling – she still polls pretty strongly. If it was a “disaster”, she’d be in serious trouble per the polls.
[/QUOTE]
Why would the polls be related to my perception of her book tour? She lead early polls in ‘07’, too, and she was a disaster in the Senate at the time. How many people taking recent polls listened to the full interviews that HRC gave during that 2014 book tour? Much of the media protects the Clintons. Sometimes, a rogue journalist will put Hillary on the spot, but it’s extremely rare. Did you hear or read what happened when Terry Gross dared to ask about Hillary about her changing views? Hillary’s bitchy reaction revealed the jolt she feels when she comes face-to-face with someone getting in the way of her potential grip on power. Any decent mainstream liberal should be able to easily beat Hillary during the primary. Bernie Sanders has a chance I think but a more centrist liberal challenger seems more likely to win IMO. I’m just not sure who that is. Jeb Bush is also likely to lose nomination on the GOP I predict despite also being the fundraising champion.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
I might prefer Sanders or O’Malley (not sure about Webb), but I’ll vote for HRC if she wins the nomination because the Republicans would be so, so much worse. As little as I trust Hillary’s honesty, the Republicans (the ones running, at least) are even less honest. And their policies would be far, far worse for America and Americans.
[/QUOTE]
I prefer all three of them (and many more potential candidates including Dems, GOPers, indies) to Hillary by a huge longshot.
She was angry that Gross said “changing your mind” without “learning about it.”
Since he’s announced I’ve seen a couple of articles touting him as some kind of gun rights hero.
:eek:
SAY WHAT?
Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America rate him no better than an F!
Heh. I’ll bet some people will buy this bunk too. Vote for him over Hillary because she’s after their guns.
If you were just saying that you personally think she sucks, and her book tour sucked, and her interviews sucked, then that’s fine with me. I thought you were arguing that these things were a disaster for her political career, which is demonstrably false.
You’ve made it clear that you think Hillary sucks. Even if I took everything you said as absolutely true, she’s still nigh-infinitely better than the Republicans.
It’s a disaster for her hopes of ever getting his vote, sure. We see a lot of that here.