ADVERTISEMENT

Hillary to announce on Sunday

We don't need a moderate president. We need a moderate


distribution of wealth.
And for that, we need radical changes.
We need full employment and fair taxation (i.e. more taxes on the upper income people and less on the lower income people).
We need laws to prohibit American companies from registering in other countries in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes and laws that incentivize U.S. companies to make their goods in America .

We need a restructuring of the banking system (break up the too-big-to-fail banks) and laws that will limit the plundering of companies by their top management (e.g. not allowing fat cats to sit on each other's boards and give each other multi-million-dollar salaries and bonuses).
We need to prosecute business people and bankers who break our laws.
We need to reduce drastically the role of money in the election process.
We need to change the U.S. from a raging war machine, both domestically (read: Ferguson ) and globally, to a beacon of peace (which we were at one time, I think).
And of course we need to work on the problem of racism in America .
For these radical changes, we need a radical leader.
Hillary Clinton? Ha.
She and her husband are part of the problem.
Anyone in the Republican party? Ha. Ha.
There are two politicians that I trust instinctively. One is Elisabeth Warren. The other is Bernie Sanders. But I also thought Barack Obama would bring about some radical change, and that didn't happen.
Is there something that changes the man (or woman) when he or she comes into office? George Carlin joked that as soon as a new president is inaugurated, he is immediately taken to the Oval Office and shown film never seen before of the Kennedy assassination.
Hope and change? Ha. Ha. Ha.






This post was edited on 4/13 1:36 PM by Collett_Park

This post was edited on 4/13 1:37 PM by Collett_Park
 
Oh, I don't know . . .

I think Hillary would have been just as good, if not better, as a presidential candidate in 2008; she certainly would have been a better candidate then than she will be in 2016 despite her stint as SecState, if for no reason other than her age. (Sorry hoot, I thought then - and still think now - that 69 was too old for Reagan to be entering into a two-term presidency, and based on reports from his 2nd term I think that judgment was borne out by events . . . and will be with Hillary, too.)

I'd still like to have had Hillary run in 2008/12 while Obama ripened on the vine, preferably as governor of Illinois, but perhaps as a senator, instead. I suspect he'd have been a much more effective president than he's proved to be . . . .

This post was edited on 4/13 11:49 AM by Sope Creek
 
Good lord

It figures that you appear when moderation is non-existent. You mean Dodd-Frank isn't working out like you lefties planned?
 
Great piece

Had not read it before. Again, I'm not suggesting that Bush isn't a good candidate and likely more worthy than his brother. I'm simply saying it is poor timing.
 
Does Walker's lack of college education hurt or help him?

I could see him garnering some interesting support. Personally, I think it is a negative too, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would align themselves with him and look at him more as a normal individual than say... Hilary.
 
Well, I for one don't feel qualified

To judge anyone else's marriage. I certainly wouldn't presume whether someone should stay with someone who has committed adultery or not. I certainly wouldn't presume to know whether someone stayed in a marriage for political reasons or not either. My respect for a politician generally has little to do with their personal life. I'm not TMZ and I'd just as soon not know. The exception is the politician who loudly campaigns against issues such as gay marriage and then is found to be gay or bi himself. If Hillary or Bill had been campaigning for fines or something discriminatory against people having affairs, I might be interested, otherwise, not so much.
 
And what a choice it is....

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz so far! They won't alienate anyone at all. Bring the Tea Party candidates on!
 
I think the net-net is it hurts him . . .

sure there are going to be those whose anti-education/science "elitism" will be drawn to someone who has no formal education . . . but Walker's negatives on other fronts - general divisiveness and aggressiveness in union-busting (remember, his negatives include having been called to face a recall election in 2012), lack of foreign policy experience/expertise - will be fodder for some highly effective criticism, to which his lack of an education will be added as perhaps a cause of those other attributes.

Can he overcome this? Clearly he has in his run for governor in Wisconsin . . . but that's a pretty small sample size when considering the national electorate. And neither his 2010 nor his 2014 electoral margin was all that overwhelming . . . . I think this dude's primary advantage is the support he likely gets from the Koch brothers money, which can be negated in national elections.

This post was edited on 4/13 1:50 PM by Sope Creek
 
Also ran.

Rubio caused himself a whole lot of harm with conservatives over immigration. It was not that he took the lead for Senate Republicans on immigration reform. In fact, he was still in good stead with conservatives as the deliberations were going on -- mostly because he assured them that any bill he supported would include a quantifiable "trigger" mechanism tying the "pathway to citizenship" (or amnesty, whatever you prefer) to border security. The bill that passed the Senate had very weak language to this end, though. And that's when the crap hit the fan for him.

He's since expressed regret for it. But it's impossible to get that toothpaste back in the tube. I don't think Rubio's going anywhere. There are reasons other than this -- but it's the biggest one.
 
Interesting . . .

could Rubio switch parties like his predecessor and make a go of it as a conservative Democrat?

Could he be a 3rd rail candidate?

Would a FL/FL presidential/veep ticket of Bush/Rubio make any sense? Or are Jeb's strengths gonna cover any advantages that Rubio might offer anyway?

Like I said, I have no idea how Rubio might fit in . . . and I'm just trying to sort through any possibilities before I discard the notion of him being a viable candidate. Frankly, I have no opinion on Rubio one way or the other . . . maybe his lack of political identity a real problem for his viability as a candidate.
 
I think you will find more anti-union sentiment than you expect

Even friends of mine that are hardline Democrats tend to be more moderate or even opposed to mandatory unionization.

I agree that his foreign policy experience is lacking, but isn't that par for Governors? What you lose in foreign policy experience (and perhaps even understanding) you gain in experience running an office and leading. Did Bill have any experience before he moved from LRA to the White House?

I do tend to agree with you that his lack of compromise in previous negotiations and discussions is troublesome, given Washington's history.
 
Can't be a FL/FL ticket.

Unconstitutional. It was the reason that Cheney reestablished residency in Wyoming in 2000. He had been a Texan, after previously hailing from Wyoming. But that's a constitutional no-no -- 12th amendment.

Rubio is way too conservative to ever run as a Democrat. If the guy was smart, he'd be putting all of his efforts and resources into holding onto his Senate seat -- which has already drawn a formidable Democratic candidate (Murphy).

Without the conservatives he alienated, Marco Rubio is a man without much of a constituency. Jeb will struggle with immigration, too. But at least he's held pretty firm about where he stands on the issue. And there's a lot to be said for that.

Walker, for his part, has flip-flopped on immigration. But I think he has more room for forgiveness than Rubio does -- because Rubio actually co-sponsored a bill that nearly became law despite promising to never support such a bill.

The Republican race will come down to Jeb (for the establishment) vs. Walker (for the party base). All the rest have fatal flaws.

This post was edited on 4/13 2:14 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
I think you missed my point . . .

about the union-busting; it's not so much that he was anti-union, it's that he was so aggressively anti-union that it caused a huge rift in his state, to the point of causing the recall election. That's about as divisive as one can get in any state . . . not the recipe for getting elected nationally. Too many negatives for anyone who isn't already supportive of a libertarian-style Republican to support Walker, even if Hillary is the alternative . . . .
 
I'm not judging marriage, I'm judging character and personality

He cheated on many occasions with multiple women. She stood by her husband in a sham marriage for political reasons. That is pathetic IMO.

"I think you can not be surprised but still be rocked. I think that she was always aware of the likelihood that he was carrying on one-night affairs. When those became politically explosive, as happened on many occasions, certainly never more so than with Gennifer Flowers in 1992, she really had to decide how she was going to respond. What she did was to decide to save her husband, to rescue him. And she understood that one of the consequences of that was that she would gain in terms of her own ability to exercise political power."
 
I love that op-ed piece . . .

it is full of cannon-fodder for Democrats to use against Jeb, or any Republican candidate.

Bring that one on!!!
cool.r191677.gif
 
I'm sure you're right.

And the fact that you are right, IMO, speaks volumes to why we're where we're at -- and not only us, but much of the industrialized world.

That's why I say that I hope Jeb meant what he wrote. Because, while his general theme may not be what a lot of people want to hear, I think it's one of the primary keys to getting ourselves back on track. And therein lies the conundrum: what we need is what people don't want to hear....while what people do want to hear is a one-way ticket to decline and chronic stagnation.
 
My first reaction when I heard about this...

...was that it would be a significant drag on him. But I've become more ambivalent on the issue.

In fact, as you suggest, it probably opens up some populist opportunity for him (not that I'm a fan of political populism of any kind) -- and a means of contrast with the Ivy League set (which includes not only Obama and Hillary, but also the Bushes).
 
Again if you ruled out every politician

That had extra marital affairs, I'm afraid you'd have a pretty shallow pool left. I know people not even in public life that have chosen to stay together, and genuinely love each other that aren't always faithful. Unless Hillary wrote those words you quoted, they mean nothing. Only the two of them knows what goes on in their marriage.
 
You must think that

you'll be on the receiving end of some of that redistribution of wealth. If not and you wish to pay more taxes here[/URL] is a link that shows you how to send the government a gift.

This post was edited on 4/13 3:24 PM by NPT

Hit it
 
It depends.

...in many (maybe most) states, there just isn't a whole lot of political equity in unions remaining. At one point in time, it would've been unthinkable for a governor of Wisconsin to do some of the things Walker did in Wisconsin viz unions. Not only did he do it, but he won election twice after doing so.

I do suspect it could still cause him some grief in some key battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But, then, Michigan recently became a RTW state -- and Gov. Snyder won reelection in 2014 and Republicans held strong majorities in both of Michigan's legislative bodies. If "union-busting" can be tolerated in Michigan of all places....
 
And you must think that

everyone is as ego-centric as you are.

You think that if I say most people should get more than what they are getting with the game rigged the way it is, then I must be one of them, looking to get more for me. That says a lot about you.

If all you can think of is "me" and "mine", that is pathetic ... and the crux of the whole g-d problem.
 
Here's a question for you . . .

from a policy perspective, why is it that a business owner can deduct up to 25% of his net earnings, capped at about $50,000, in a SEP retirement plan, but an employee who has no retirement plan through his/her employer is limited to deducting $5500 ($6500 if they're over 50)?

You wanna use markets, personal initiative, and rights to rise/fail, even the playing field . . . the example above is just one in a system where business interests get virtually all of the breaks . . .

. . . that highly pitched playing field is causing as much or more decline and stagnation as any "liberal" policies you can point to . . . . . . . . . .
 
I've never been impressed by this argument . . .

in fact, I think it's stupid. Under this theory, businesses would have to build their own roads, provide their own police and fire services . . .

. . . my taxes subsidize businesses in a HUGE way; I get far less personal direct benefit from my tax payments than the businesses in my area - and that aren't in my area but who do business here. That's a redistribution of my wealth to those businesses.

Do you really want to go there? If so, let's just unravel the entire social compact and implement anarchism . . . .
 
I agree.

People need to stop looking at government as a means of getting "mine". They are indeed the crux of the whole g-d problem.
 
I don't think

it's stupid at all. I realize everyone supports all the infrastructure BUT if you feel personally that you aren't paying enough taxes then send a gift. The problem is that most people who say taxes aren't high enough on the rich are thinking that other people (not themselves) should pay more. I have personally paid more than asking price for a few things in my wife because I knew what I was buying was either marked wrong or the person just didn't know they were really screwing themselves.
 
Well . . .

the issue is what level of taxes does everybody need to pay, not whether I or Collett have a few buck "extra" to toss at a government. You have tried to turn a policy issue into a merely personal issue in order to avoid the policy discussion.

That's stupid, plain and simple . . . or the height of cynicism, which is worse than stupid because it'd be an intentional misrepresentation of the discussion. You can pick which one you prefer, stupid or cynical, NPT.
 
I think I

must have struck a nerve.
roll.r191677.gif

The rich should pay more taxes.... "Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent."

Hit it
 
Re: Well . . .

That is your opinion.....thankfully.
 
Solid rebuttal from the person offering a string of jibberish as a post

You truly are pathetic.

This post was edited on 4/13 5:01 PM by mjvcaj
 
No, it's not . . .

it's a fact as plain as daylight. The fact that you again try to avoid having to face the policy issue by declaring the reality an "opinion" is just as stupid and cynical as your attempts to treat global warming as an "opinion".

Pound sand, dude.
 
You expect me to defend this?

I think we should have, as old Herman Kahn used to say, "a tax code that looks like it was designed on purpose." What we actually have is a labyrinthine mess where this or that interest has successfully lobbied to have this or that exemption, deduction, etc. etc. The purpose of the tax code should be to raise revenues to pay for government....not to influence peoples' behavior.

There is no reason at all we couldn't have a significantly simplified tax code -- whether in the format of a VAT/consumption tax or an income tax (or some combination thereof) -- where all dollars are taxed, once and only once, equally.

I don't think the tax code should give favor to business owners and/or wealthy people. I also don't think it should give disfavor.

When I say that government should be smaller in size and scope, that isn't code for "I actually just want it to favor rich people at the expense of everybody else." I actually mean it. And the "freedom to fail" is a concept that is at least as much directed at the haves as the have-nots. GM should've failed -- and they should've had an orderly bankruptcy just like any other. The investors and creditors should've taken the hit with Solyndra and its cousins, not taxpayers. Failed financial institutions should be failed financial institutions. Failed airlines should be failed airlines.

In fact, what we have now -- where, as you say, many policies (and not just taxation) do favor the rich and where elections are at least as much an exercise in attracting dollars as attracting votes -- is an obvious by-product of a hyperactive government. Buying politicians is a very sound investment because they exert an outsize amount of influence in directing dollars -- be it by way of taxation, spending, or regulation.
This post was edited on 4/13 5:04 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sglowrider

How to Persuade a Trump Supporter to Reject and Resist Trumpism

Replies
38
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
billyhillui
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back