politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton
Source:
TheWeek
URL Source: http://theweek.com/articles/569184/ ... shing-weakness-hillary-clinton
Published: Jul 31, 2015
Author: Michael Brendan Dougherty
Post Date: 2015-07-31 10:43:17 by Tooconservative
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 6638
Comments: 124
Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican. Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns, but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition. Martin O'Malley's record, shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse, has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says, "All Lives Matter." Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them. Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions, Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform, while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue. She can run against Trump on immigration, against Huckabee on social issues, against Walker on foreign policy. But it's an opportunity that she has so far passed over. Perhaps she doesn't want to get bogged down in actual policy details, always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details. Still, it means that the entirety of Clinton's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband's mistresses. Calling Bill's pump-and-dump paramours "trailer trash" and "narcissistic loony tunes" is understandable in my own view, but considered impolitic today. Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can't be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost. What has she done to improve her chances in that time? She's aged well, I guess. And she served without distinction as secretary of state. The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya, which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS. In turn, Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her. She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans. She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission? After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America's major institutions? Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor. Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them. Poster Comment: After a few weeks of Trumpsterism, the GOP has forgotten about Hitlery altogether. But she is self-destructing from her own scandals and repulsive public persona. Her name recognition and reputation are sky-high. And that is her biggest problem. The Dems know who and what she is. I think the writer overlooked just how repulsive her major Wall Street banking connections are with Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase, the new UBS scandal, etc. That's pure poison to the Dem base voters, the bulwark of the Occupy Wall Street types. And the Xlintons are still loathed by the Obama Dem establishment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
All of which means that the Republican candidate will probably win, whoever it is. Which means that the Republican candidate matters. But it will be Jeb Bush. Which means more crony capitalism. Bush will probably be the next President on account of all of this, and the country will continue to deteriorate.
More likely, Biden or Warren will enter the race to try to defeat the Whore of Babylon. Either one is a better fit for the Lefty base voters of the Dem party.
Not a bad article, but I can sum it up in fewer words: The ruling party will determine whether or not all of its election fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, and illegal immigrant voting will be enough to get a flawed candidate like Hilliary Xlinton elected. It may or may not be - the jury's still out on that one. But since the ruling party will decide who the republican branch candidate will be, they'll just have to ensure Xlinton's "opponent" will be the Jebster - another flawed candidate. Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.
Which obviously means that the real tragedy here
Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc. I'd say too little difference but not "no difference".
There will indeed be differences between the Supreme Court appointees. Democrat Supreme Court appointees will be reliably liberal on all things. Pick the issue, and you can virtually guarantee how the Democrat appointees will vote. Since we haven't had a Supreme Court controlled by Democrat appointees since 1969, we can expect that if Democrats get control of the court, they will continue to act in lock-step with their ideology, as they always have. Republican Court appointees will be reliably corporate capitalist. The Kelo decision and the "corporations are people too" campaign finance funding are reliable Republican positions. Republican Presidents can be relied upon to make sure, through their appointments, that a pro-choice majority sits on the Court. So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy. That is really what the fight is over.
I hope it's Biden. Among the top Democrats, I think that Biden is the "most decent". Biden could beat Bush, and I would not be unhappy with that result. He's still a babykiller - and worse, a Catholic one - but then, so is the Republican leadership, and Jeb Bush let Terri Schiavo die without intervening. Bill Clinton would have intervened, with force if necessary, as he did during the Elian Gonzales standoff. Democrats have the courage of their convictions. Jeb Bush's only real convictions are in favor of crony capitalism and maintaining the immigration flow from Mexico. So, you've raised an intriguing possibility: Joe Biden runs and beats Hillary, and then beats Bush. That's not a bad result. Best one I've heard that seems even possible. I wonder if Obama will use his power to back Biden.
He's still a babykiller - and worse, a Catholic one - but then, so is the Republican leadership, and Jeb Bush let Terri Schiavo die without intervening. Actually, I think Bush converted to Catholicism too. I'm not sure the libs were wrong about Schiavo. I think the case should have been referred to an independent panel of doctors for expert evaluation. You might recall that at the height of the Schiavo fight, Senate Majority Leader Bill Fritsch was diagnosing her via satellite video link from the floor of the Senate. It was way over the top, especially with the indy voters. The pro-lifers gave themselves a big black eye with that, no help from the libmedia needed. Even more disappointing was that, after all that effort on Schiavo, the same pro-lifers did absolutely nothing to reform state laws to allow family members to petition for a case like Schiavo to be referred for extended study by a group of expert independent physicians. It is disgusting that Schiavo's husband stood to gain by keeping her remaining settlement money to spend on his new wife after he gave the order to starve Terry Schiavo. That circumstance alone should have triggered a move for independent evaluation by a board of doctors and a judge. The husband had strong motive for ending her life for his own benefit. The courts and the laws failed to protect her. And the Right, for all its rantings over Schiavo, did nothing to shore up these weaknesses that still exist in many states. So it seems. The ruling class(es) seem bent on it so all the "credible candidates" are toeing the line on that policy, perhaps wiggling a little on each side of the line but with none promising to simply enforce the laws on the books concerning illegal aliens. Which is the real job of the president, not finding lots of ways to subvert the written laws as Obola has done. The worst consequence of Obola's presidency is the bad precedent of sheer lawlessness. We will regret this -- and possibly mourn it -- in the future. When your top leaders fundamentally corrupt your most powerful civic institutions, nothing good can come of it. The country is more ripe for civil war in some respects than it has been in my lifetime, even during the aftermath of the Sixties. Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate during his years there. Biden was a close second. It's one reason he became VP. Obola is the interracial charismatic Biden. The Obamas loathe the Xlintons, loathe the way they ran the country. Others like Valerie Jarret are positively poisonous toward the Xlintons and their record. Add in Hitlery's record of being on the Walmart corporate board, being in the pockets of every major Wall Street bank and with nearly all of them enriching the Xlintons through the Xlinton Foundation And Massage Parlor, and you see why the Dem base voters just don't like the Xlintons at all. There is some sentiment expressed on the Left that winning with the Xlintons is still losing overall. Hitlery is working hard to try to prove she really is a woman of the Left, despite many years of being anything but that. Some Dems have even said it would be better to lose with a Sanders or an O'Malley than to win with a Xlinton again. So it is quite possible for Hitlery to lose her hold on the nomination. In fact, her hold in 2015 is already much weaker with no real challenger than it was in 2007 at this point when she was also the overwhelming favorite and most people hadn't even heard of Borat Obola yet. So it's plenty early for Hitlery to sink her own ship (by campaigning) and draw a strong challenger to take the nomination away.
Not going to happen. Si vis pacem, para bellum
I've posted this before, but I'll repeat myself here: The ONLY reason I've had for voting GOP since Reagan is the argument you just presented. Repeat - ONLY. In the Bible - Book of Esther verse 4:14 - there is this: Since 2008, there have been two (no, three) SCOTUS decisions that defy Constitutional logic. Upholding Zero-care; Re-upholding Zero-care; and homosexual marriage. Republican appointees whiffed on all three. That reason no longer holds water, and since Jeb (or another corrupted candidate) will be the nominee, I don't see me voting gop for POTUS anytime in the near future.
There is one party - the Ruling Party - and it has D and R branches. I've been saying this for years. I see a lot of views posted that go back to a bygone era - which probably ended circa 1950 The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the crony capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans. Yet they are democrats. What gives?
When your top leaders fundamentally corrupt your most powerful civic institutions, nothing good can come of it. The country is more ripe for civil war in some respects than it has been in my lifetime, even during the aftermath of the Sixties. I don't think it is repairable. And none of the Americans I know wants to repair it either. What they all want is for their (narrow, foolish, poorly- thought-out) ideology to prevail. The only viable strategy is to outlive this all, as something new always emerges somewhere.
Yet they are democrats. What gives? Some billionaires give huge amounts to charity. And some of them, I think Warren Buffett is one, did not start out as billionaires and, for all of their wealth and their experience, still do have their eye on what is best for all. They actively seek what is good for them, but they don't want, say, their fellow Nebraskans to be in poverty either. They know how to make themselves rich, and they know what is needed to make life for everybody else tolerable too. They act on what makes themselves rich, but they're not kings and cannot simply wave a wand and make things better for everybody else - that takes legal change. And they will not simply impoverish themselves - they won't give it away so that somebody ELSE can be rich and rule the roost like they do. They genuinely want to change the system ITSELF so that those who are not ruling the roost have it somewhat better. Most billionaires are nothing like that, and billionaires who came from nothing are frequently uncharitable. All billionaires are hard-minded. I think that some of them, Perot and Buffett in particular, really DO give a damn about their fellow men. And they are smart, and sit on top of the economic system of the world, so they have better information, better knowledge, a more complete picture, and are also just simply more intelligent when it comes to finance and managing things than regular people. And those guys, in America, trend Democrat. The reason why is pretty basic. First, it has nothing to do with Christianity. These men are not Christians. They are secular humanists. They support abortion because they see the alternative as overpopulation and increased human misery from unwanted children. They don't believe there is a caring God who will supply aid. They think that extra babies who are unwanted is a pure deadweight loss on society, increasing misery. Obviously I do not agree with them. But then, I know God. They don't, and they are operating on logical, financial principles and worried about the people on the bottom. Truth is, when poor people and teenagers have babies, they and the babies are headed for a life of struggle, suffering and probably crime. That is why seculars like Buffett are pro-choice. It is not a matter of supporting sexual libertinism. It is because they see abortion as the only realistic way to stop human misery, in a real world and universe in which (they believe) there is in fact no God to assist anything or anybody. Because they are not religious, they do not moralize about sex. And because they see the obvious economic and social implications of "pro- life", and know all of the suffering that will come from more unwanted babies, they have no patience of Christians, Muslims and - to their view - other superstitious and unrealistic nutjobs inflicting massive hardship and pain on people in order to respect the laws of a God that does not exist. In the real word, unwanted pregnancy means poverty, welfare, crime and suffering. Therefore, secular billionaires are all pro-choice, and the Democrat Party is unapologetically pro-choice. Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures. So, that's the first part. Billionaires are practical, successful, worldly people. They are not strong believers in God, and even to the extent they are nominal Christians, they are liberal Christians or Jews who flatly reject the superstitious nonsense of Christians, as they see it, and they also reject the deceit and bad policy proposals of Republicans, driven by the Republican desire to pander to a base of ignorant zealots who know nothing and who need to be ignored - for their own good! - not encouraged. That is brick one. Brick two is purely economic. The billionaires at the top, with a heart to go with their brains, recognize that people have needs. All people. They know the cost of retirement and of health care and education, because they provide those benefits. They have the big picture, and they recognize that government is the only POSSIBLE source of finance for retirement, education and medical costs. It cannot be done universally for a profit. Sure, the private sector can profit on the broad middle where there is profit to made in treating boo- boos, but when it comes to the six-sigma disasters - the father who, having just seen sextuplets born, comes down with pancreatic cancer that can only be cured by a $10 million dollar treatment - those people cannot ever be profitably covered. Yet they MUST be. So, the billionaires who care about their fellow men strongly support universal Social Security, and want it strengthened to be THE full retirement program, so that all of the money that currently goes into expensive and ineffective private programs instead goes into the federal coffers. They support universal health insurance. They want to see education improved across the board, and college made a birthright. And they are internationalists who see people as people, and therefore do not support slamming shut the border. Now, middle class people, who do not really understand economics or finance but who often think they do, frequently oppose the broad social programs that the billionaires who care see are VITAL to social stability and reasonable standards of living for all. So these middle class people, ignoramuses relative to the billionaries - vocally OPPOSE necessary things, calling them "Socialists". The billionaires know that is absurd. They're not socialists, they're capitalists. But they recognize that if the government doesn't do it, there will be calamity and social unrest. So they support the Democrats because the Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful. That is precisely why the Buffets of the world vote Democrat. Milionairs who aspire to be billionaires vote Republican. Top billionaires vote Democrat. That's why.
Republican appointees whiffed on all three. Yes, UNLIKE Dem appointees whose litmus test is ALWAYS hard Left-Commie-Fascist, the GOPe Vichy traitors have defied logic and appointed likes of moderate-centrists as if to purposely "level the ideological playing field." As long as the RNC Cartel remains married to the DNC Cartel, expect more Republican treachery and collusion with the Dems, led of course by the crusty old cast of parasitically embedded establishment Republican Senators (Hatch, McTurtle, McStain, Cornyn, Graham, etal.) From without we've already seen Romney fronting for 0buma and Jeb. The ONLY solution to accomplishing ANY thing is in selecting a bold Party outlier who isn't afraid to out-wit, out-slug, and pulverize the same old cheap talk, no action GOPe patsies and FIX. The ONLY candidates who fit that bill at the moment are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump is out of the gate quickly, but frankly I expect the PTB will do ANYTHING to turn this current version of Trump -- a political stallion -- into a gelding. The PTB are not yet targeting Cruz because they feel he's already been marginalized and does not present a threat.
Your posts seem more often then not to be contradictory. As usual you broadbrush Republicans as "flagrant liars." Yes, one wing of the party certainly are. That would be the hypocritical establishment Republican Wing. Can you please clarify: 1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"? The point you never seem to comprehend or concede is that ONLY within the Republican Party are pro-life legislators. There is only so much they can do, considering there is the House, the Senate, and veto power of the Executive office. BESIDES a corrupt Supreme Court. The power of individual Republicans (pro-lifers comprise most of the conservative wing) are limited by the stench of the ruling wing of the Republican Party -- RINOs, aka the establishment Republicans. Do you understand the difference? And do you concede that there are ZERO Democrats who support the pro-life position? Democrats, again, are the only party that unabashedly supports those programs that the socially-conscious billionaires see as needful. What you perceive of Democrats as compassion and addressing the "needful" is anything BUT. Democrats have by design created a constituency and class of voters who are TOTALLY dependent on FREE STUFF. You believe the Dems lie, then compound it by believing your own lie. Social programs were originally intended as a safety net for the unfortunate and those unable to care for themselves; NOT the "Entitlement" you seem to believe is a God-given right. The Bible speaks of Charity. NOT Grand Larceny in the name of constituency-building and enslavement. The wealth redistribution you apparently advocate is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. You're either willfully ignorant of the truth, or live in fantasy-land. Billionaires are all about quashing the middle class and building their empires. They are NOT the humanitarians and philanthropists you seem to envision. America is only a vehicle for the majority of them. Democrats? They "unabashedly" endorse "kinda-spreading-the-wealth-around" which is BS-Speak for STEALING blood and sweat from SOME, and giving it to OTHERS. As a means of remaining in power. They accomplish this retention of personal and political power via coercion, threats, or at the barrel of a gun. That's a strange ethic to advocate. Never mind justifying it as Bible-chic.
And the cuckservatives will support them every step of the way.
1) Exactly WHICH Republicans are doing the "lying" and "stirring"? 2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak? 3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"? Exactly WHICH Republicans? For starters: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell. The specific lies? Well, Reagan went out there courting the "Moral Majority" with his pro-life schtick. Of course, like Romney, when he was Governor of California, Reagan was pro-choice, supporting the abortion law. And Reagan installed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. A "pro-lifer" Republican? No. A lying panderer. The Moral Majority bought it then, hook, line and sinker. But since then we've had Bush put Souter on the court, and another Bush try to put Harriet Miers on the Court. We've had Romney create Romneycare, on which Obamacare is pattered, and populate it with state-funded abortion as a matter of right. And we had Romney himself, pretending to be pro-life. And we've got the Republican Senate, just now, pass through Planned Parenthood funding on a snap voice vote, to get it done before the controversy could stop it, and to do it all off the record. All of those Republican leaders are liars. All of those things they have done are lies, when they hold themselves out as a pro-life party. Now, back in the day, the Moral Majority were not rabble as such. They were sincere pro-lifers who expected their political will to be advanced by the party they supported. But NOW, after THIRTY YEARS OF BETRAYALS, 30 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT with abortion as entrenched as ever, 20 of those years having Republican Presidents...who appointed 3 clear pro-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court. (Democrats NEVER appoint anybody who is not a loyal partisan - AND REPUBLICANS DON'T EITHER. SO, the fact that Republicans name pro-choice Justice after pro- choice Justice to the Court, ensuring that the pro-choice contingent is always the majority, is not some ACCIDENT, it IS the policy of the Republican Party - to CLAIM to be pro-life while quietly and effectively upholding abortion. Reagan installed abortion in California and appointed 2 pro-choicers to the Supreme Court, Bush appointed a pro-choicer, the second tried appoint a fourth, and did appoint two justices who are untested on abortion...but we've got John Roberts twice upholding Obamacare. And Romney. And now the Republican Senate funding Planned Tissue Harvesting of Babies "Parenthood".) 30 years on, it is perfectly obvious that the Republican Party is not pro- life. IT is perfectly obvious that they are crony capitalists who LIE about being pro-life in order to capture the Christian vote, of the old Moral Majority. It is perfectly obvious that the Moral Majority were DUPED by these Republican liars. So, who are the Christian rabble? They are the Christian pro-lifers who, after 30 years of betrayal by a Republican Supreme court and every single Republican President from Reagan on, and also by every recent Republican Presidential nominee, and just this past week by the Republican Senate - Christian pro-lifers who persist in being Republican on the absurd insistence that the Republicans are "pro-life" - THEY are the Christians who are rabble. What they are, are partisan fools who refuse to open their eyes or learn anything from experience. The Bible speaks about wealth redistribution, both testaments. The Bible makes it clear that this is mandatory for anybody who wants to go to Heaven. If one refuses to accept that, he defies God and is "Christian" rabble. Most billionaires are about getting rich and using their money to get richer, and dominating everything. A few of them are philanthropists. The question I was asked, and which I answered, was why they vote Democrat. That was what I answered. Now I've answered you. You have decided to make defense of the Republican Party a point of honor. It's a pity, because you have far more honor than they do.
And the Dems voted in unison. Again, it is weak but it is what it is when you judge by actions, not words. For each justice a Prez Hitlery appoints to the Court, assume at least five more years before the Court will allow any opportunity to move the Court's jurisprudence to the Right (toward liberty) and away from collectivism and Leftist ideology. With Dems on the Court, you are absolutely guaranteed to lose every fight, most likely irremediably as they pile up one precedent upon another.
Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. I agree,and it looks to me like she is being sabotaged from within by the Dim Party Machine. I strongly suspect part of it is that nobody trust her less than the Dim leadership. After all,they have been screwed by the Clintons before,and nobody knows the total truth of their corruption and baggage more than the people who helped them cover it up. I am beginning to think this just might be a case of the pragmatic taking over. Bubbette! (and especially Bubba Bill) can NOT be trusted to take over the WH again,plus it is really the alleged Republicans whose "turn" it is to take over to keep alive the impression we still have a two-party political system. Time for some patronage favors to be repaid as the alleged Republicans "take over" and arrange "soft landings" for Dims out put out of power and patronage jobs. The alleged Republicans will hold office for 8 years,and then it will be the Dims "turn" again. Assuming of course they still bother to pretend 8 years from now. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
(In my best Jim Nabors voice) SIR-PRIZE,SIR-PRIZE! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Rufus,it is MY opinion that the only thing they have to decide is "Do we want to put up with the Clinton's in power again,because they are not team players,and they only look out for themselves." I think that decision has already been made,and the answer is "No". I agree with TooConservative that Warren is likely to be the final Dim contender/election victim. She will keep the whymen vote firmly in the Dim column,and keep them pissed at the RNC while they are at it because the feminists will think the alleged Republicans stole the election. As I have said before,it is now the alleged Republican's "turn" to occupy the Oval Office to keep the illusions of a Two Party System in place,so all the Dims are really worried about is keeping base loyal. Obomber has pretty much screwed up the chances for another black president in our lifetimes,so that leaves the whymen vote and the His and Her Panic vote. Right now I can't think of any likely His or Her Panic suspects with national name recognition on the Dim side. Most of the prominent ones are so radical they make Obomber look like a right-winger,so I can't even guess who it could be. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You and I don't agree often,but you sure hit a home run there! BTW,take away the political posing,and they are both about crony capitalism. The only real difference is whose cronies sit at the top of the pyramid. For those of us on the bottom,it makes no difference at all which one sits on the throne. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Damn boy, them RINO's got you cucked good. It is really pathetic to see someone cucked by cucks.
Go ahead and jump on Trump's bandwagon. Don't think twice about how he was a big Hillary supporter and Xlinton Foundation donor. Third party movements never win in America. Never. The best outcome you can achieve with Trump is another TR with the Bull Moose party or another Perot with the Reform Party, either scenario ends up with Prez Hitlery. The reason I know you Trump guys are total idiots is that you've taken your man-crush on Trump as a pledge of eternal fealty even before you've heard a single debate. For that matter, you've gone all in on a blowhard self-promoter and serial bankrupt and lifelong Dem supporter as The Great White Hope of 2016. It isn't just stupid or corny, it's sheer monumental ignorance. Apparently you don't understand how presidents actually get elected, without exception.
That's news to Abraham Lincoln, he won as a 3rd party candidate. Of course the Whigs first committed suicide, exactly as the GOP has done. GOP's main aim is to import democrat voters for cheap labor, they are an evolutionary dead end. It's just like a species that turns queer, it'll end up going extinct, enviable demographics. Same as the cucked RINO's of the GOP.
The Republicans are the Whigs, under a new brand name. The three central priorities of the Whigs, and particularly those of Henry Clay, became the bedrock principles of the Republican Party. There have only ever been two parties that mattered in America.
The Whig voters went over to the GOP, after being back stabbed by the Whigs on the issue that mattered to them. The Whig party reformed as the Constitutional Union Party, and contested the 1860 election, taking the Border States and Virginia (which included West Virginia at that time). The Whig leadership was cucked to the democrats, who wanted cheap labor and greater political power. The Compromise of 1850 was their style of cuckoldry. The base did not like, and left them. What cuckoldry did for the Whigs it's doing to the GOP.
You sound like a teenager who just learned a new naughty word. How many different ways can you work the term cuck or cuckold into a sentence? It's the interweb's newest sport, known as Spot The Cuck!
So in essence they want women to continue to be sluts instead of being women, real cute. With Republican nominees you are also guaranteed to lose every abortion fight. O'Connor. Kennedy. Souter. Roberts. The attempt to put Harriet Miers. I'm reminded of the American Revolution. Throughout the war there was an opposition in the British Parliament that thought the American grievances were legitimate and that the government should stop the war and give the Americans what they wanted, short of independence (which the Americans did not originally seek). Should the Americans have stuck with England because a toothless minority in Parliament was on their side? That's what you're advocating. You're saying that the Democrats are SO TERRIBLE that the Republicans must be supported. But one what, exactly, are the Democrats "so terrible"? Not on war policy. Bush gave us the wars and lost them. The Democrats have continued them at a lower scale with less American death. You're not going to get anything different from the Republicans than the Democrats on war policy. What, then? The Border? Bush and the Republicans left the Border open, and make clear they will continue to do so. The Democrats, at least, have Unions constraining them. The Republicans have given nothing more than the Democrats. So, what then? What's left? Economic policy. The Republicans want to privatize Social Security and put it into the stock market. Madness and greed. Crony capitalism. The country very rightly sees that the Democrats are hands-down superior at protecting the American retirement program. The Republicans hate Obamacare. And they hate Medicare. And they hate Medicaid. So, what DO the Republicans propose? Nothing. They would simply dismantle government health insurance, apparently, and "leave it to the markets". They did this once upon a time, under the leadership of a very charismatic President who was a good grand strategist and an economic moron. Ronald Reagan deregulated the Savings and Loans. Some crony capitalists got rich, and a whole industry was destroyed and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Fact is, government health insurance is a necessity. It cannot be done any other way. Obamacare will never be repealed by Republicans. They had two shots at it in the Supreme Court, and opportunities to defund it. Fact is, Republican leaders about national health care are the same as they are about abortion: they throw boob bait for Bubbas about repeal, etc, but they intend to ENTRENCH it too. Why? Because Obamacare is very, very good for the interests of crony capitalists. People HAVE to buy insurance, and that's good for financiers. So, we've got Democrats installing Obamacare because they rightly see that we need universal health insurance. And you've got Republicans conniving at making sure it survives, not because the Republicans give a good goddamn about the health of Americans, but because their economic alphas have figured out a way to make a killing at it. The Democrat plan was originally single payer, essentially universal Medicare. And that's what we'll eventually end up with. Obamacare was a compromise by Democrats, to offer Romneycare, just exactly what the Republican Presidential nominee had done in Massachussetts, to the nation. Republicans refuse to be realistic about the economics of middle class and working families. They fundamentally oppose Social Security and public health insurance. In this very real sense there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are clearly worse, and have been since Herbert Hoover. Democrats win over time on economics, because they understand the modern world, and understand that urban societies need national insurance to cover the basic needs of health, education and retirement. Eventually, they'll add home ownership to that, and they'll do it by direct government loans - single lender - and cut the financiers out again. All in good time. Republicans, meanwhile, bellow about socialism and propose nothing but a return to the Great Depression. On economic grounds alone the Democrats are the better party. It's a pity they are evil murderers, glorifying in the killing of babies. For if the Democrats were pro-life, it would be a no-brainer to vote for them, and they'd win every election. But they're not. Instead, we have two parties that get to the same place, in their ACTIONS, on abortion and foreign policy, and a Democrat Party that is much better on economics. All things being equal, then, by YOUR logic, because the Democrats are better at ONE thing that is important, I should vote for them. But I am a moral purist. I don't vote for murderers. The Democrats are the better party, because their economics are sane and work. BUT, they're babykillers, so I will not join them. Instead, because of that ONE issue, I stayed in the Republican ranks. But the betrayal is now so clear, I know that the Republicans will NEVER actually use their power - which they have even right now - to move against abortion. Which means that both parties connive at abortion, but Republicans LIE about it. Which makes them scumbags. Still not voting for babykillers. But following your logic, I SHOULD vote Democrat, because both parties are IN FACT equal on abortion results, but the Democrats are better on economics. If I were you, that's what I'd do. But I'm me, and I don't vote for babykillers, or cut them any slack, just because they happen to be right on some other things.
I din't know about weakness. She has a will of iron, but a brain as soft as breakfast oatmeal. The reason she gets away with it is people are stupid.
They serve money. Therefore, they're evil by definition. "You cannot serve both God and money." - God I was simply explaining how they think. They don't believe in God. They do believe in money. They do believe in liberty, and they don't care about "sluttism", because that's a religious judgment call, and God isn't real to them. They don't care about traditional values. They assume that free people are going to indulge in as much recreational sex as they can get. (And 'all experience hath shewn' that they are dead right on that). They DO care about the economic and social effects of lots and lots of unwanted babies born to poor mothers. A secularist will point out the sustained drop in crime 18 years after Roe and onward. The poor are most likely to be criminals. The poor are also most likely to abort. The seculars will point to abortion as the thing that nipped the "criminal unborn" in the bud. And they'll be right about that. As a religious pro-lifer, I recognize that the policy I support: prohibition of abortion, means that there will be, at start, 2 million unwanted babies born every year, that three quarters of them will be on welfare, and that the crime rate will explode unless we have a sustained, permanent wealth redistribution that raises the economic status of single mothers. I understand that the social policy I advocate for religious reasons MEANS that, also for religious reasons AND for practical reasons, we will have to go to Scandinavian levels of taxation and wealth redistribution in order to make it work. I accept that as a given. The price of really abolishing abortion is socialism. I have reconciled myself to that reality and accept it. That's why the Republican suggestion: abolish abortion AND cut off the social safety net, is looney tunes nonsense. If we WANT to have Latin American or African levels of poverty and social unrest, we could do that. But it's so foolish that I know we'll never do that. This is why pro-lifers have to get real about economics, and understand that the state is going to have to support all of these children. It will be expensive, and wealth will have to substantially redistributed from the top 10% in order to make it viable. Currently they have 85% of the nation's wealth. To actually abolish abortion and have a viable state that meets Christian standards of decency, they are going to have to forfeit about half of their wealth. Not all at once, but gradually, over time, through taxation. Just like in Finland or Sweden or Denmark. There's no other way. Being pro-life without facing the reality of FEEDING, CLOTHING, HOUSING, MEDICATING, EDUCATING and EMPLOYING 1.5 million more poor people every year is not being pro-life. It's being "pro-birth", and it's not a Christian position. Facts are stubborn things. Mouths have to be fed. That means wealth distribution on a very large scale. It has been excessively concentrated in the top of the US, and that has to be corrected for the nation to survive long term at peace - IF we're going to stop killing babies. Otherwise they'll be born to starve and become criminals, and revolutionaries.
No, you know factually that it is Democrat nominees that make it guaranteed to lose. This is why pro-lifers stick with the GOP; they know that no federal judge appointed by Dems in the last 30 years has the slightest interest in any protection of the unborn. If you were the raging pro-lifer you try to depict yourself as, you would know this. I've concluded you are, at most, nominally pro-life. Not actually pro-life in any meaningful sense. IOW, you are even less pro-life than your fellow-Catholic GOP justices you love to decry as the traitors of the pro-life cause. I think that would describe you much better. As always, every drop of your venom is used on a GOP target, not on the Dems who have been the implacable enemies of the unborn for the last 50 years and whose judges are absolutely uniform in their enmity toward unborn children. You aren't fooling us with your more-pro-life-than-thou routine. So you can have your communism and your abortion ban too? Don't make me laugh. Surely no serious person you've ever met considers you anything but a loon on this topic.
There is much to be said in support of that view.
Yes it does, sneakypete. It makes a huge difference. With Democrats on the Throne, you will have Social Security, Disability Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized home and educational loan programs, TVA, road projects, OSHA regulations, workers comp, recourse against abusive employers, minimum wages, weekends, and higher taxation on the rich to pay for these programs. With Republicans on the Throne, those things will all be cut and you'll have greater poverty and suffering for everybody but the super rich, who will be taxed less and who will get much further ahead., Democrats believe in social welfare and the taxes to pay for it. Republicans hate social welfare because it is expensive and they prefer to leave the wealthy untaxed. So, for guys like you, who don't have a lot, the difference between Democrat rule and Republicans really getting their way is the difference between dignity and destitution in your old age. THAT is why the Democrat AGENDA has won all 42 of the last 42 election cycles. The Democrats represent the ultimate interests of about 80% of the American people. The Republicans represent the interests of 20%. Presented clearly, the Republicans would never win an election. So they obfuscate, bang Bibles, make it about abortion (which they, however, support through their actions…in part because they don't want to pay for all the welfare that would result). Periodically they propose things like privatizing Social Security, and then they get decimated at the polls. So they content themselves with slashing the taxes on the rich, but not cutting expenses. That is why whenever Republicans are in office nowadays: Reagan, W, etc. - the budget deficits explode out of control but the spending doesn't get cut. They cut taxes, but they don't cut the programs - because if they tried they'd be out of power. The Democrats, such as Clinton and now, Obama, gradually move towards a balanced budget because they leave the social programs in place (just like the Republicans do), but are more economically responsible: they put the taxes back on the rich to pay for it. Gradually, that brings down the deficit. Reagan and Bush left the country with massive deficits. Clinton balanced the budget and left W a surplus. W slashed taxes on the rich and cut regulations, and set us up for massive deficits and the financial crisis. Obama has hiked taxes, and gradually the deficit is coming back under control. It does make a difference who is on the throne. Economically, Democrats give you a safety net and tax the country to pay for it. Economically, Republicans want to leave you destitute, if they could, and slash taxes and regulation that they cause economic debacles such as the S&L crisis and the stock market blowup. And the Great Depression too, for that matter, brought on by Republican monetary policy. That's the difference.
I'm pretty sure the Pope and Cardinal Egan agree with me, and they are serious people. The price of cheap exploitable labor, since the Civil War, has been the steady importation of Catholics. The crony capitalists got their cheap exploitable labor. But that labor is Catholic. And it votes. And Catholics know that the King has a direct commandment from God to care for the poor, and that in democracies we are all the King. Therefore, Catholics know that taxation and redistribution through vast social safety nets is a commandment of God, and obligatory for Christians. And that is precisely how we have always voted, and always will. The Know-Nothings were right: let in all those Catholics, and they will change your country forever. Mexicans may not be good enough Catholics to ever ban abortion, but they will certainly uphold the Social Welfare state. THIS is where you Protestant Southerners have decided to refight the Civil War. Truth is, we agree on abortion. Truth is, by opposing Social Security, universal education, universal health care, and general poverty relief, organized by government and paid for by redistributive taxes that specifically take more from the rich, because they have been given much and much is now expected, you oppose God. You think you support God, but that's just Calvin's "usury is ok" heresy working its way through Protestant veins. Nobody every convinces Protestants they're wrong. Sexual license has made half of them leave the faith, leaving a remnant that is hard-core, and minoritarian. Nobody ever convinces Catholics they are wrong either. Catholics who go soft, prevaricate about abortion and turn into Pelosis and Bidens, which is terrible, BUT even THEY retain the fundamental understanding that the social welfare state and progressive redistributive taxation are expressions of the commandment of God to the king to care for all the poor, and that in democracies were each the fractionated piece of the king, and must vote to support what is necessary. Your side will never be convinced otherwise, and neither will mine. It's the North and South all over again. But demography is destiny, and we're STILL importing millions of Catholics every year, because your crony capitalists just LOVE that cheap exploitable labor, and you Protestants can never find your way to free yourselves from them. This is why I'm pretty confident of the future, looking forward. Obama set down a marker with Obamacare. It's a crappy program, and its pressures will inevitably drive us to full-on single payer, a new Social Security program, paid for by progressive redistributive taxes. Just as God wants. Catholics and Protestants don't agree. But Protestantism is disappearing, and Catholics keep immigrating and reproducing. So in time, I win. By the time I'm 250, things should be pretty good.
There is much to be said in support of that view. Well, that's because it's true. Likewise, the Nazis gassing all the gypsies they could get their hands on reduced street crime. If you kill marginal people, the problems caused by marginal people don't happen, so you get to live a better life. Then you die and wake up in Hell. Bad trade.
This is the most irresponsible pope since the corrupt medieval popes. He has no dignity at all, no respect for his office. He is to Roman Catholicism what Obama is to the rule of law. They are both disgraceful frauds. You are delusional.
I don't vote Democrat, even though the Democrats are right on economics. You DO vote Republican, even though the Republicans put Roe in place, expanded it with Casey, and ushered in public funding of abortion through Romneycare and two Supreme Court decisions protecting Obamacare. Truth is, you serve money. That's what Republicans do: they serve money. They serve monied interests. Then they lie about being pro-life, even though they GAVE us Roe v Wade and Casey and Romneycare and Obamacare, because that's the only way they can persuade a large electorate to vote against its interests. People like me, for example, who voted Republican for all these years, against my economic beliefs, because of the abortion issue. So I guess if voting is a meaningful thing, then the fact that I have voted for Republicans for 15-odd years because of the abortion issue means that I am "actually" pro-life in a meaningful sense. Truth is, in this corrupt and dying country, the most meaningful thing that anybody can do that is pro- life is to pray.
In scripture, it was not the duty of kings to care for the poor.
Comments (41 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
All of which means that the Republican candidate will probably win, whoever it is.
#3. To: TooConservative (#0)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
...which means more crony capitalism....
is that I have no where near enough cash to
become a 'crony'. Nope - no way...
#5. To: Rufus T Firefly (#3)
Jebster or Xlinton. Doesn't matter.
#6. To: TooConservative (#5)
Despite their similarities, there will be significant differences in the outcomes from those two. Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.
#7. To: TooConservative (#2)
More likely, Biden or Warren will enter the race to try to defeat the Whore of Babylon.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
(Edited)
Biden could beat Bush, and I would not be unhappy with that result.
Jeb Bush's only real convictions are in favor of crony capitalism and maintaining the immigration flow from Mexico.
So, you've raised an intriguing possibility: Joe Biden runs and beats Hillary, and then beats Bush. That's not a bad result. Best one I've heard that seems even possible. I wonder if Obama will use his power to back Biden.
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
" The country is more ripe for civil war "
#10. To: TooConservative (#5)
Appointees to the Supreme Court, etc.
And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
(Edited)
So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy.
#12. To: TooConservative (#8)
The worst consequence of Obola's presidency is the bad precedent of sheer lawlessness. We will regret this -- and possibly mourn it -- in the future.
#13. To: Rufus T Firefly (#11)
The view you have - quoted above: Why do you say that, when you have billionaires like Soros and Buffett that LOVE the corporate capitalism - so by your measure they should be republicans.
#14. To: Rufus T Firefly, TooConservative (#10)
Since 2008, there have been two (no, three) SCOTUS decisions that defy Constitutional logic. Upholding Zero-care; Re-upholding Zero-care; and homosexual marriage.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
Republicans, by contrast, are flagrant liars. Their decisions in courts and in laws is pro-choice, but they go out there and stir up the ignorant Christian rabble with lies - that they'll stop abortion (they don't intend to), and with half-gestures.
2) Of which specific "lies" do you speak?
3) And exactly which Christians do you consider "rabble"?
#16. To: Liberator (#14)
As long as the RNC Cartel remains married to the DNC Cartel, expect more Republican treachery and collusion with the Dems, led of course by the crusty old cast of parasitically embedded establishment Republican Senators (Hatch, McTurtle, McStain, Cornyn, Graham, etal.) From without we've already seen Romney fronting for 0buma and Jeb.
#17. To: Liberator (#15)
Can you please clarify:
#18. To: Rufus T Firefly (#10)
Republican appointees whiffed on all three.
#19. To: TooConservative (#0)
Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Bush will probably be the next President on account of all of this, and the country will continue to deteriorate.
#21. To: Rufus T Firefly (#3)
The ruling party will determine whether or not all of its election fraud, stuffing ballot boxes, and illegal immigrant voting will be enough to get a flawed candidate like Hilliary Xlinton elected.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
(Edited)
So the real choice between Democrats and Republicans is the welfare state economy and the crony capitalist economy. That is really what the fight is over.
#23. To: TooConservative (#18)
With Dems on the Court, you are absolutely guaranteed to lose every fight, most likely irremediably as they pile up one precedent upon another.
#24. To: nativist nationalist (#23)
Damn boy, them RINO's got you cucked good.
#25. To: TooConservative (#24)
Third party movements never win in America. Never.
#26. To: nativist nationalist (#25)
That's news to Abraham Lincoln, he won as a 3rd party candidate. Of course the Whigs first committed suicide, exactly as the GOP has done.
#27. To: TooConservative (#26)
The Republicans are the Whigs, under a new brand name.
#28. To: nativist nationalist (#27)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
They are secular humanists. They support abortion because they see the alternative as overpopulation and increased human misery from unwanted children. They don't believe there is a caring God who will supply aid. They think that extra babies who are unwanted is a pure deadweight loss on society, increasing misery.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#30. To: TooConservative (#18)
Again, it is weak but it is what it is when you judge by actions, not words.
#31. To: TooConservative (#0)
The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton
#32. To: CZ82 (#29)
So in essence they want women to continue to be sluts instead of being women, real cute.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
(Edited)
With Republican nominees you are also guaranteed to lose every abortion fight.
The price of really abolishing abortion is socialism. I have reconciled myself to that reality and accept it.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
The seculars will point to abortion as the thing that nipped the "criminal unborn" in the bud.
#35. To: sneakypete (#22)
BTW,take away the political posing,and they are both about crony capitalism. The only real difference is whose cronies sit at the top of the pyramid. For those of us on the bottom,it makes no difference at all which one sits on the throne.
#36. To: TooConservative (#33)
Surely no serious person you've ever met considers you anything but a loon on this topic.
#37. To: rlk (#34)
he seculars will point to abortion as the thing that nipped the "criminal unborn" in the bud.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
I'm pretty sure the Pope and Cardinal Egan agree with me, and they are serious people.
So in time, I win. By the time I'm 250, things should be pretty good.
#39. To: TooConservative (#33)
I've concluded you are, at most, nominally pro-life. Not actually pro-life in any meaningful sense.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
Catholics who go soft, prevaricate about abortion and turn into Pelosis and Bidens, which is terrible, BUT even THEY retain the fundamental understanding that the social welfare state and progressive redistributive taxation are expressions of the commandment of God to the king to care for all the poor,
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]