Her mastery of technical details is truly unrivaled. Which is what made it surprising that she honestly believes you wipe a server with a Sham-Wow.
And what’s the profit in winning over poor progressives when she will be richly rewarded for helping corporate America?
Not the most dramatic flounce-off we’ve seen on this board lately, but it will have to do. I give it a 3.5.
Breaking the law isn’t funny when you are running to be chief executive.
Unfortunately, you don’t have the facts on your side, even as a joke. That shit don’t work here.
Hillary could work to end the Hyde Amendment and support birth control and abortion choice in her health care plan.
That’s the proposal by Hillary that got this progressive’s attention.
To answer the OP forthrightly, there are plenty of things that Clinton could do that would make progressives happy. Many progressives, after all, are after policy changes, not after nasty little “my team rah rah” games. And some of Clinton’s policies are progressive, such as:
-Increasing support for working parents
-Increasing support for early childhood education
-Increasing support for college students trying not to fall into debt
-Increasing training for police on implicit bias and de-escalation
-Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing and de-emphasizing law enforcement as a solution to drug addiction
-Ending privatized prisons
-Increase minimum wage
-Increase worker protection enforcement
-Redirect energy spending from subsidies of fossil fuel manufacture to subsidies for renewable energy (I first wrote “and nuclear,” but on her website I don’t find that, which is a bit annoying for me).
There are plenty of other issues where she has a lot of overlap with progressives. How many of these things can she actually accomplish? I’m not entirely sure: while McConnell is likely to start off super-partisan against her, I don’t expect Ryan to do the same, and I think she’s not nearly the speaker that Bill or Obama is, but she seems to be a better back-room dealer than Obama and possibly as good or better than Bill in this respect.
There are, of course, issues where she disagrees with lots of progressives, including myself. She’s far too hawkish for my tastes, and her support of the coup in Honduras is nearly a dealbreaker for me, and might be in a different election year.
But if the question is where she can find common ground with progressives and possibly get things done, I’d look to some of the items I mention above. Not all of it will get done, but I’m optimistic that she can move at least some of them forward.
I don’t think that’s exactly right either. She’s a Third Way Democrat, which is a slightly different animal than an Eisenhower Republican. But I guess they are equivalent on a right-left spectrum, so close enough.
Much like her husband I think she’ll end up doing more for my side than progressives’. But when push comes to shove all Democrats really care about is winning anyway, so it doesn’t really matter how she governs. Only a few loud true blue progressives are doing to nitpick her. Anything she does will be either loudly supported or at worst tolerated, whether it’s deregulation, cutting spending, or bombing somebody. if she manages to prevent a Democratic disaster in the 2018 midterms then she’ll have all the political capital she’ll ever want to spend among Democrats.
Your mind-reading of Democrats continues to fail. You are very, very bad at this and should stop.
Fortunately, there are tons of actual Democratic voters and progressives here, and we’d be happy to educate you on what we really believe. Sure, we’ve tried it many times before and you don’t seem very interested in learning, but we’re a patient sort for the most part.
None of that is actually going to happen though, not so much because Republicans control at least the House, but because none of that is really a priority.
She’s the President. She’s going to fight ISIS, she’s going to handle Russia and Iran, and she’s going to balance the budget and support job creation by any means the GOP will agree with(which means targeted tax cuts and free trade), which will in turn lead to her having high approval ratings and get reelected. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
Destroying evidence in an investigation is a crime. She’s lucky there is a politicized FBI and that she has a former president as husband.
I don’t have to read minds. Whatever happened to the anti-war movement? We’re bombing five countries and… crickets.
That’s because we have a Nobel peace prize winning Democratic president.
Most of the anti-war movement was directed at stopping Americans from dying by the score. They succeeded at that, and thus it’s not as much of an issue any more.
As our troop presence ramps back up in Iraq, I’m still hearing nothing. Is it just a case of boiling frog syndrome, or perhaps Democrats really don’t care?
I think most Democrats care about deaths. I don’t want any troops on the ground, but troops with no deaths is a million times better than scores of dead Americans every month. It’s all about the body count. As long as there’s no new list of dead American service men and women every month, there won’t be a big backlash.
Not to downplay military losses but the interstates claim more lives than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. If we as a nation think certain interests are worth using force over some losses are to be expected.
Okay, so Republicans will not face opposition for wars that can be waged on the cheap?
I think the region is inherently unpredictable and there’s no way to know the outcome of using force, to the point that it’s essentially random if a military action in such chaos is as likely to make it worse as it is to make it better. With that in mind I think we need to stay out – we can’t know if we’re doing good or not.
They’ll face a lot less opposition than they would for wars with high costs (most importantly American lives, but also resources). Why would this be a surprise to anyone?