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: 6683
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
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: Rufus T Firefly (#10)
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.
Obama has been a very effective President. He got universal health care in place. He got us out of Iraq, where we did not belong. He killed Bin Laden. After the crisis, he is bringing down the deficit. The US economy is in better shape than all of our rivals. Either he has eunuched the Republicans, or they are the collaborators I have believed them to be. If he has eunuched them, then he is a more brilliant politician than you give him credit for. He has avoided the personal scandals that plagued (and still plague) the Clintons. He was effective, and he'll go down in history as having been a very successful President. Oh, and he's the only President who has ever effectively stood up to the Jewish Lobby and knocked them down to size, deflating their power considerably. All in all, I'd give Obama an A. Very effective. Gets what he wants done. Most of what he gets done will turn out to be good. Defeats his enemies. Unfortunately, he's a babykiller, and therefore a Hitlerian type: effective, and very evil - because of that. People who support killing babies are evil.
Then you die and wake up in Hell. And if you don't you wind up living in a hell on earth.
Yes it was. It was the duty of the state itself, through the Levite tithes. And once the kings became kings it was their duty. You Protestants have been devising a heresy of serving money ever since Calvin declared usury cool and Henry VIII took all of the monasteries to distribute their lands to his cronies. For claiming Sola Scriptura so loudly you are remarkably ignorant of what the Bible actually SAYS about money. But there's no point in discussing it, because Catholics and Protestants never convince each other of anything. You've made it clear what you think of me so many times. And by comments like this one about Scripture, you've also made it clear that you're ignorant of the Scriptures. Go read them again, cover to cover, and pay good attention to everything God says about money. Then repent and start teaching the truth.
Then how is it that the tycoons are largely aligned with the Dems and have been for years? Buffet, Gates, Zuckerburg, Soros, the Hollywood donors, the Wall Street donors, all are aligned to the Dems as the bulwark of Dem party finances. On the GOP side, you have only a few large players (Koch brothers at $80B, Adelson's gambling interests ($37B) along with his fellow gambling tycoons for more billions, some others like the big Mariott hotel chain (Mormon, hundreds of hotels), or the Coors family. The money balance of the permanent big money sector comes in on the Dem side politically, more so than on the GOP side. In addition, Dems also have the libmedia openly abetting their agenda, academia indoctrinating it, and Big Labor to serve as the grassroots arm in a unique carveout of political power that no other group can match. I see the two parties as two competing factions of tycoons and corporate lobbyists, none of whom I like or trust much.
Ireland the Philippines and Chile are not hell on earth. Neither is Costa Rica or Argentina. Neither is Colombia or Uruguay, for that matter. They're poorer than here, but in most of those places, they live longer. None of them permits abortion.
Because to be a billionaire, you have to be smart. And smart people with a lot of money know their history. They know what happened in France. And in Russia. And in China. And in Mexico. And in so many other countries, where the rich were allowed to get super-rich, and the poor were allowed to rot. Revolution. And then the wealth was lost. Also, there's something about most of those billionaires you mentioned. Most of them are Jews. The Jewish Scriptures command systematic charity, they know it's the obligation of the Jew to pay to support the state and the poor. Some Christians think that Christ stripped all of that charity out of the Scriptures and made usury ok too, reducing it all to charity and making it all about believing some mantra or other. These people are not smart. Therefore, they don't have billions of dollars, or millions of dollars. They follow millionaires, who tell them strange things, and they believe them. That's why the billionaires are mostly with the Democrats. Because to have a sustainable society long term, the government has to do those infrastructural things that can't be done for a profit: like educating all children, and giving retirement pensions to everybody, and covering medical care. Those things have to be done, or you end up with a poorer, stupider population that can't buy as many of your products, and you have a breakdown of the rule of law too, so you're not safe. And you have lots of crime. Social welfare buys social peace. And in an environment of peace, commerce flourishes. Like any other insurance, social welfare is expensive, but like any other insurance, when the pool is the biggest (the whole populace) and it's operated non-profit (by the government) the rates are lowest. Therefore, the smartest are the richest, and the richest want things that can be most efficiently covered by government, like building roads and providing retirement payments and medical coverage, to be covered by government. And they're willing to pay taxes to do that, because they control the government through their influence, and doing it this way is cheaper. The few Republican billionaires are mostly greedy bastards, or lost in fantasies about American exceptionalism such that they don't believe that what happened in France, Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, etc. can happen here. Or they figure they'll be fine no matter what. That's why.
You aren't fooling us with your more-pro-life-than-thou routine. Republicans and Democrats are both babykillers and evil. Democrats believe in social welfare once you're out of the womb. Republicans oppose that. So, Democrats are despicable babykillers, and Republicans are uncharitable despicable babykillers and liars. A pox on both houses.
Work for the DNC,do ya? Your post was nothing more than a big steaming pile of HorseHillary. 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)
Nope. I hate the Democrats. They're babykillers. What I wrote was the truth.
No,it was Dim/socialist dogma,which is nothing but pure BS. 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)
Ireland permits abortion intervention for the life of the mother, including threatened suicide. They can legally go to Northern Ireland and obtain an abortion.
There are always wrinkles in the laws. And of course the Irish have given themselves over to sexual license now, and Ireland is marching out of Christianity into secularism now, so the abortion ban will be gone there soon enough, The point I was making to elk was not that there is a total ban anywhere. It was that in states that prohibit abortion, there are indeed more babies born, to the poor, and yet those states are not hell on earth.
Lucky for you this "pure BS" has been in place long enough for you to have learned to read, write and compute, and is in place now to provide you with retirement checks every month and Medicare against your raging bile duct condition.
Actually it is non-universal, and it is not health care, but expensive, high-deductible health insurance.
Didn't the Irish abortion ban fall like 8-10 years ago in a popular referendum? That's my recollection of it anyway. A few years later, the same happened in Mexico, at least in Mexico City.
And the great bulk of the increase in coverage is in Medicaid, a distinctly inferior form of healthcare. Outcomes for Medicaid patients is much worse than for Medicare or privately insured. In some instances, people with no insurance have better survival rates than those supposedly insured by Medicaid. So we shouldn't forget how expensive this "free" healthcare is, that it largely redistributes middle-class healthcare to poor childless adults who don't work full-time jobs. These are the actual primary beneficiaries of ObamaCare and they are not well-served by being on Medicaid. It is a flight into fantasy to pretend that Medicaid is comparable in outcomes to Medicare or private insurance.
Democrats believe in social welfare once you're out of the womb. Republicans oppose that. Once you come to the realization that they're both one party, the better off you'll be. The system is rigged...against us.
Comments (59 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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,
#41. To: TooConservative (#38)
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.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
If you kill marginal people, the problems caused by marginal people don't happen, so you get to live a better life.
#43. To: TooConservative (#40)
In scripture, it was not the duty of kings to care for the poor.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
Truth is, you serve money. That's what Republicans do: they serve money. They serve monied interests.
#45. To: rlk (#42)
And if you don't you wind up living in a hell on earth.
#46. To: TooConservative (#44)
Then how is it that the tycoons are largely aligned with the Dems and have been for years?
#47. To: TooConservative (#33)
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.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
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.,
#49. To: sneakypete (#48)
Work for the DNC,do ya? Your post was nothing more than a big steaming pile of HorseHillary.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
What I wrote was the truth.
#51. To: Vicomte13, rlk (#45)
None of them permits abortion.
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
reland permits abortion intervention for the life of the mother, including threatened suicide. They can legally go to Northern Ireland and obtain an abortion.
#53. To: sneakypete (#50)
No,it was Dim/socialist dogma,which is nothing but pure BS.
#54. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)
Obama has been a very effective President. He got universal health care in place.
#55. To: nolu chan (#51)
Ireland permits abortion intervention for the life of the mother, including threatened suicide. They can legally go to Northern Ireland and obtain an abortion.
#56. To: nolu chan (#54)
Actually it is non-universal, and it is not health care, but expensive, high-deductible health insurance.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
Republicans and Democrats are both babykillers and evil.
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#57)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]