[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 6665
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.Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-40) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:12:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Then you die and wake up in Hell.

And if you don't you wind up living in a hell on earth.

rlk  posted on  2015-07-31   22:13:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: TooConservative (#40)

In scripture, it was not the duty of kings to care for the poor.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:15:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Truth is, you serve money. That's what Republicans do: they serve money. They serve monied interests.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   22:15:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: rlk (#42)

And if you don't you wind up living in a hell on earth.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:16:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: TooConservative (#44)

Then how is it that the tycoons are largely aligned with the Dems and have been for years?

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:36:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.,

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-07-31   22:37:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: sneakypete (#48)

Work for the DNC,do ya? Your post was nothing more than a big steaming pile of HorseHillary.

Nope. I hate the Democrats. They're babykillers.

What I wrote was the truth.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-07-31   22:40:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13, rlk (#45)

None of them permits abortion.

Ireland permits abortion intervention for the life of the mother, including threatened suicide. They can legally go to Northern Ireland and obtain an abortion.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   22:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: sneakypete (#50)

No,it was Dim/socialist dogma,which is nothing but pure BS.

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   22:49:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)

Obama has been a very effective President. He got universal health care in place.

Actually it is non-universal, and it is not health care, but expensive, high-deductible health insurance.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   22:50:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   22:52:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: nolu chan (#54)

Actually it is non-universal, and it is not health care, but expensive, high-deductible health insurance.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-07-31   23:00:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13 (#47)

Republicans and Democrats are both babykillers and evil.

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.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-07-31   23:01:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Fred Mertz (#57)

buckeroo  posted on  2015-07-31   23:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: TooConservative (#55)

Didn't the Irish abortion ban fall like 8-10 years ago in a popular referendum?

No. The referenda that were approved provided free speech about abortion and the right to travel out of country to obtain an abortion. A legal case provided the right to obtain an abortion when the life of the mother was threatened, even by suicide.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   23:10:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: buckeroo (#58)

I noticed he censored your comments.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-07-31   23:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: TooConservative (#56)

it largely redistributes middle-class healthcare to poor childless adults who don't work full-time jobs.

The provision of routine or minor health care by insurance with a high deductible may be illusory if they cannot afford the deductible.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-31   23:15:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Fred Mertz (#60)

buckeroo  posted on  2015-07-31   23:15:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: nolu chan (#54)

Actually it is non-universal, and it is not health care, but expensive, high-deductible health insurance.

Those precisions on your part are correct.

It is universal, however, in the sense that everybody has to pay for it. Those who don't buy the insurance will instead have to pay a tax penalty. Money is fungible, and it all ultimately goes into a big pot for distribution.

So, those who get insurance, get it. Those who don't, pay a penalty. That puts money in the pot. If they get sick and don't have insurance, after their resources are exhausted they end up on Medicaid, and the gov't pays for their health CARE out of the big pot.

It's not ideal, but a single payer could not get passed on the first round. Now that universal payment is in place, it will fester and not work, and future crises will force it to be shorn up again and again. And eventually those shore-ups, in times of concentrated political power, will result in single payer. We didn't get there in one step, just as we didn't get from Unemployment Insurance to Medicare in one step. But the foundation has been laid, and it will be built out incrementally.

It's a pity we cannot have a cold-blooded political discussion of the requirement, establish single payer and payment schedules, and implement it, but we can't, so we have to do it in a drifty, messy, avoid- disaster sort of way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   23:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: TooConservative (#56) (Edited)

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. T

No, we definitely should not forget that. And we should move to single-payer, universal Medicare, 80/20 coverage, with the 20 covered by Medicaid for the poor who cannot pay that portion.

It should be paid by taxation, and there should be no "for profit" role of private health insurers in the 80.

No should we forget that this "quarter-of-a-loaf" solution was made necessary by an opposition that refused to propose ANY alternative other than status quo, which is unacceptable.

Also, it should not be the middle class bearing the bulk of the cost. Taxes need to be set so that the top 1/2% are paying the same rate on their wealth that the middle and working classes are. That would mean a very substantial tax hike at the top.

In the early 1970s, the top 20% had about 50% of the national wealth. A concentration, but bearable. But today, the top 10% has 85% of the wealth. That is not sustainable and needs to be redistributed, through taxation and social insurance programs.

There is a basic floor of education, health insurance, housing, food and old age pension below which nobody should fall. And the social infrastructure should provide for that. And it should be paid for with redistrbutive taxation, and also with direct federal exploitation of resources. Where there is oil and gold in federal ground, or state ground, a federal or state not-for-profit should be set up to exploit it directly, providing employment and providing a stream of resources directly into the federal treasury without going through taxes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-31   23:40:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Vicomte13 (#46)

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.

It was socialism that made most of them billionaires in the first place. Lots of folks assume that wealth redistribution means the transfer of wealth away from the rich. Historically it is just the opposite. John Corzine would have been been ruined 20 years ago; except for a socialist bailout. The biggest piggies at the federal pig trough are the left wing globalist billionaires. And biggest wealth redistribution scheme today is the immigration invasion, a gold mine for the plutocrats.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-07-31   23:49:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Vicomte13 (#45)

They're poorer than here, but in most of those places, they live longer.

The nice thing about universal near-poverty is that there is less jealousy and little rationalization employing inequality of income for theft. People plant what seeds they are capable of or harvest from the jungles and go about their primitive activities.

In highly industrialized nations it is a different story.

rlk  posted on  2015-08-01   1:24:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Vicomte13 (#53)

No,it was Dim/socialist dogma,which is nothing but pure BS.

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.

You believe all sorts of stupid shit,so the above comes as no real surprise.

You are a natural slave in search of the ultimate Master.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-01   7:53:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: nolu chan (#59)

The referenda that were approved provided free speech about abortion and the right to travel out of country to obtain an abortion.

Seriously? The Irish government actually has the authority to punish it's citizens for the things they do in other countries that is legal in those countries?

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-01   7:57:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Vicomte13 (#63)

The referenda that were approved provided free speech about abortion and the right to travel out of country to obtain an abortion.

Why doesn't the Catholic Church just pay for everyone's medical care? After all,they are richer than any government,and that is the sort of thing they are supposed to do. That's why they pay no taxes.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-08-01   8:00:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: nativist nationalist (#65)

t was socialism that made most of them billionaires in the first place.

Not socialism, crony capitalism. That was true of the robber barons of the 19th Century also. After the Civil War, the Republican Party dominated the government, all the way to the election of 1892. During that post-war period, the great trans-Continental railroads were built. They were built on government land, that was simply handed over to well-connected Republican businessmen, who build the railroads, called in the Federal cavalry whenever the Indians got in the way of what was, objectively, an encroachment of their land.

The railroad barons were granted huge swathes of land on either side of the railroad also. Basically, they were granted all the land one day's journey on horseback from the railway line - meaning that they had a monopoly on all of the useful land. That land HAD BEEN federal or Indian, and it was simply handed over to the rail barons. They built the railroads and the price of the land along the railroads skyrocketed, and they became very rich. Pure crony capitalism.

Note that when the ORIGINAL railroads were built back East, they were built by the states, not by free market private capitalists. The Penn Central Railroad, which became dominant, was built by a bond subscription from the State of Pennsylvania, and operated by the state during all of those long, difficult years of trying to make a railroad work. Only once it was profitable was it handed over…to connected crony capitalists….so that they could privatize the profits from a rail system undertaken, built and brought to profitability by public money. Ditto for the New York Central and the other major early rail lines. They were built and run by the government, and only handed over when they were established. In other words, all of the risks and expense were socialized, and the profits were privatized.

With that experience, once it came time to build the trans-Continentals, the government skipped the government development stage and simply handed over tens of thousands of square miles of land, land that was guaranteed to explode in value once the rail line was there, to crony capitalists.

The government COULD HAVE simply financed the railroad, or built the railroad directly with the Army Corps of Engineers. Then the government could have SOLD all of that land at its enhanced price.

Instead, the utterly corrupt Republican government handed the land and all of the profits over to the best connected barons.

The barons got rich, but they did not run railroads well. There were lots of near bankruptcies and bailouts.

Socialism, meaning the public ownership of the productive means, is how the American railroads were originally built, and it's how the Interstate Highway system, airports and ports are STILL built and operated. Only once the people have borne the cost and the risk and the burden of getting everything up and running is some lucky well-connected billionaire consortium selected through corruption to pocket all of the profits.

The Russian and Chinese socialists grabbed all of the private enterprises. But in America it was the opposite. The government BUILT the vast infrastructure, and crony capitalists arranged to have it transferred to them,

And when big, well-connected private concerns go bust, the government steps in with public money to save them.

My own view is this: government land should be developed by the government, with profit going into the treasury. There should be a Federal Oil Company, and where there's oil on federal land, the federal government should be drilling it and pumping it and selling it at market prices, with the profits going directly into the charity. Now, instead, private concerns get to exploit the oil, and give some percentage as a royalty to the government. Private concerns pay their executives and shareholders billions - that's where most of the profit goes. The actual cost of roughnecks, drilling and equipment isn't all that high. The profits are enormous, and the government touches maybe ten percent of it. If the Feds did it directly, the government revenues from the same oil would quadruple - all of the middlemen would be taken out. That oil belongs to the People. It is on federal land. Private concerns have no right to take the profits from it. That profit should be going directly into the People's pocket, the Treasury. That would allow for the balancing of the budget, the payoff of national debt and, eventually, once the debt interest was gone from the budget, reducing taxes.

Ditto for gold, silver, uranium and the other things mined on federal land. Ditto for state land. There is no private RIGHT to exploit public resources. We should have federal and state corporations doing it directly.

And since the money supply is a federal asset, we should have federal and state banks that directly provide the loans for people's primary housing and their education. The loans should be at the federal minimum interest rate for their term length. There is no reason to allow private actors to take a massive cut on the printing of a public asset: money.

Private oil companies will exploit oil on private land, still. And there's plenty for private banks to lend for. But when it comes to housing and education, the bank profit needs to be stripped away and the government should lend the money directly to the people - which means that the government can extend loans, and forgive debt in times of unemployment, etc.

That's how it ought to be. Note that unlike the USSR, there is no seizure of private assets proposed here, merely the intelligent exploitation of what are already PUBLIC assets by the government. The profits generated will enormously assist the budgetary situation. And the debt relief for housing and education will enormously UN-burden Americans.

House loans should be lifetime loans. The government can get paid from the estate. Ditto for education loans. THAT is how you run a railroad, a banking system, and federal land.

And THAT is how you redistribute wealth without privatizing it or imposing massive taxes.

And yes, it is socialist.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   10:09:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: nativist nationalist (#16)

And the cuckservatives will support them every step of the way.

But...but...their just saving jobs that Conservatives won't do.

Being the Emperor's flunkies and whores of lobbyists still means they still retain power and get to rule over Republican peasants.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   11:55:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#17) (Edited)

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.

Let me first thank you for at least addressing my questions and addressing your positions. That said, your narrative is not only wrong, but misguided and much of it untrue.

What "shtick" did Reagan pull?? You seem to forget that a President is NOT a King (with all due respect to B. Hoosane.)

The ONLY reason the "Moral Majority" was able to impose ANY moral influence upon America during Reagan's 1980s (and it was substantial) was because Ronald Reagan supported them and their mission -- as well as creating the freedom and political elbow room to do so. Reagan accomplished this while fending off the maniacs of the Left, moderates like Poppy Bush and his gangsters, AND a Dem-dominated Congress.

Wait; Are you REALLY comparing Reagan to Romney? Reagan sincerely changed his entire life philosophy and you're dinging him for a past he regrets? He became PRO-LIFE and demonstratively PRO-GOD. That is TOTALLY unlike Romney, who was ALL about political expediency. HE NEVER CHANGED his philosophy.

As to Reagan's appointments, yes he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. And Kennedy (neither of whom were definitively "pro-choice," so you're speculating.) But he also appointed Scalia and Reinquist. The Gipper got knocked down on Bork and Ginsburg -- ALL rock solid conservatives. You seem to forget the mob of Dems who controlled Congress. If Reagan hadn't had to deal with a Dem-controlled Congress, would the complexion of the SC have been different?

Both Bushes are a totally different story. Because THEY belong to the establishment GOP, they betrayed conservatism (Dubya gave us Alito, but also Roberts and yes, tried to impose Miers on the GOP before conservative Republicans strongly and vociferously opposed her. Forgot that, eh?)

Despite Dubya Bush having a Republican majority to work with in BOTH the Senate and House, and arguably SCOTUS (before appointing chameleon Roberts) he and his GOPe brethren REFUSED to advance a single conservative policy -- never mind addressing Roe v Wade. No sane political observer would EVER compare Ronald Reagan to either Bush. (Poppy Bush was pro-choice right up until Campaign, 1980.)

You STILL can't seem to differentiate between conservative Republicans and their agenda, AND establishment Republicans -- you know, the Republicans who call ALL the shots and collude with Democrats. The same Democrats YOU support for their fascist entitlement of MY money to subsidize Marxists and Marxism.

They [the Christian rabble] 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.

Do you actually know the definition of "rabble"??

Pro-life Christians have had NO other party to support on the issue of abortion. Was your solution and chances to overturn Roe v Wade really increased by supporting the Democrat Party? ON WHAT PLANET?

Pro-life Christians are put in a no-win situation, betrayed by liars. Yet they (we) hope hearts are change in THE ONLY PARTY who can logically and pragmatically overturn Roe V Wade. Those liars are ESTABLISHMENT Republicans, country club Republicans. THEY control the GOP. NOT conservative Republicans. Why can't you understand the ramifications of the power of the GOP's dominant wing?

Back on 1988...1992....1996...2012...was your solution to support a Third Party? If so, which. If so, tell me the odds of not only a victory, but tell me exactly how establishment Republicans and Democrats were going to support a pro-life SC judge.

Your problem Vic, is that you're idealistic, but so much so that your expectation are unrealistic. Look -- The Fix has been in since before WWII. Reagan's election has been to only outlier President who didn't belong to the establishment of either party. Reagan is why NO war was waged during his entire President. He ushered in an era of hope, of morality, of freedom, of America-First. Lumping him in as you've done with the likes of "George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell" is just plain nonsense.

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.

Your definition of "rabble"...is pretty insulting. Your notion of scriptural "clarity" in support of "wealth redistribution" is total misrepresentation. I don't doubt that *you* believe your own meme. But by all means -- go ahead and provide scriptural citations that endorse government coercion and grand theft, and Marxist "wealth redistribution," please. Yes, there's is some responsibility to care for our brothers and sisters in need -- but that is a totally different case. And so too is worshiping money over worship of the Lord. But in NO case does Scripture ever sanction the confiscation of earned wealth over to others.

As to the criteria for "Heaven," though you mean well, you've got that wrong as well.

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.

Again you miss the mark. I defend conservative Republicans for their intention to change the party from within. Your indictment of the Republican Party by default is an indictment of ALL Republicans. Vic, that just isn't true, isn't right, isn't fair.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   13:09:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: sneakypete (#69)

Why doesn't the Catholic Church just pay for everyone's medical care? After all,they are richer than any government,and that is the sort of thing they are supposed to do. That's why they pay no taxes.

The Catholic Church PROVIDES the medical care in much of Africa.

The Church is not as rich as you think it is. There is lots of church land and buildings in old cities, which gives a high nominal, paper wealth. But maintaining those buildings is where a lot of the money that goes into the collection plate goes.

Beyond the value of real estate, which is passive (and which, if liquidated, would mean there was no place for people to meet as a church), there is the value of all of the accumulated artwork of the past centuries. This is religious art. It was made and given as acts of devotion, or it was commissioned at a time when it was not too terribly expensive. The commissioning of that art, at the time, gave work to craftsman. Today, it sits there. Because it is beautiful and old, it is thought to be valuable. When little pieces of it go on the market for private collections, it fetches a good price. But the repository of such art in the Church is vast. That artwork, for the most part, served as a visual teaching aid and decoration to the religion. So, if the Church decided to liquidate it and sell it all to raise money "to pay everybody's health insurance", the value of all of that massive slug of art on the market would cause the market to crater for good. There would be no scarcity, and the actual value would be pennies on the theoretical dollar.

Those are the two sources of the Church's "wealth" - land that churches, universities and monasteries sit on, and special purpose old buildings usable only for that function, and art that decorates the old buildings. Land and art and religious buildings generate no income in and of themselves. They are a drain.

The only liquid wealth the Catholic Church has reposes in parish (and similar) bank accounts and the Vatican Bank. Most of that money comes from contributions of parishioners, and most goes to keeping the lights on. A significant portion goes to charitable work. Not much is put into endowments and management. If you liquidated all of the "excess" of the Church that is in all of these aggregate accounts, you would probably get a couple of billion dollars, all told. Not much more.

The imagined "wealth" of the Church reposes in art - that would become worthless if it were sold en masse - and in single-purpose buildings and land.

I do think that the Church should sell some of this stuff and have a smaller physical footprint, but the reason I think that is not because there is, in fact, trillions in wealth that could pay for these things - that's a mirage. It is to set the perfect example and follow the philosophy of the teachings.

So no, sneaky, the Church itself cannot pay for everybody's health insurance. The Church is not the Levitical Priesthood of the Old Testament, which had a system of taxation formally ascribed to it in order to pay for the national charity. The Church was never assigned such powers or given such a role, and does not in fact have the wealth or power or support to do it. It is the responsibility of the people overall to do it. And that means government.

Just about everybody needs expensive medical care at life end, and things like cancer exhaust the resources of most middle class people. Therefore, the government has to provide the means of treatment. It's a permanent loss, a cost of living, and it requires taxes to pay for it. Same thing with retirements, now that we live in cities and don't have family farms to go home to.

You can resist that reality forever, but it remains so, and most people know that. Which is why people like you, on the right, need to reconcile yourselves to the fact of the need of a permanent, think, social support structure that covers education, medical care, basic housing and retirement. It's expensive, it's necessary.

We can have an economy that is quite free of regulation, but we cannot have one that is free of a social safety net and very substantial taxes to pay for it. The Church cannot pay for all of it, and it is not the duty of the Church to do so. It is the duty of all of the people and their government to do so, and they do it. There is a permanent minority of people who reject that, consisting of many of the millionaires who dream of being billionaires (and who oppose the taxation that holds them back), and then people like you, who refuse to understand the realities of the world and who want to tear down the social state. Millionaires and misanthropes are the permanent minority, and you will never see the social welfare state dismantled. Never. So reconcile yourself to it, and work with people like me to ensure that it works and is probably funded, but that the logic of social welfare does not extend perpetually to mean "government gets to control everything", which is where both the right and the left have decided to go. Because government MUST provide the social safety net, and that means heavy taxes and institutions, that means that government will indeed be a large, inevitable presence. But that doesn't mean that the government has to control everything else BEYOND the safety net. THAT is where the Democrats and the Left go nuts: control EVERYTHING. On the Right side, there is an obsessive desire to control what people do with their bodies, in their bedrooms and for entertainment. There's no particular reason to tolerate the Right on that at all - it's simply the will to power. Both the Right wing and Left wing versions of oppression need to be slammed down - deregulate people, demilitarize the police, get the government off people's backs. But tax them as heavily as is necessary to maintain universal public education, universals health insurance, universal pensions and universal basic housing. Those are needs below which we cannot fall. It's a lot, and it's expensive. Government MUST do that, but it must not be permitted, or encouraged, to do anything MORE than that. This is the problem: the Right wants to control people's dicks. The left wants to control every penny of people's money. Truth is, we need about 50% of everybody's money, but the other 50%, and their dicks, are their own business. But people cannot be allowed to kill other people, and that means no abortion.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   13:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Liberator (#72) (Edited)

Your indictment of the Republican Party by default is an indictment of ALL Republicans. Vic, that just isn't true, isn't right, isn't fair.

Do you indict all Democrats? Yes. Why?

You will tell me that you indict them because they SUPPORT a party that is power crazed, corrupt, and does evil things, and that after all of these years they ought to KNOW BETTER, so they have no excuse.

And you would be right.

Now turn the mirror around. The same thing is true of Republicans.

It is entirely fair to tar ALL Republicans with the perennial evils of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party has done exactly what it is doing, which is promote crony capitalism, since 1868. There has been more than enough time to see it, because it's obvious. If Republican rank and file choose not to see it, they are no different than Democrats: willfully ignorant and blinded by partisanship, and there is no more excuse for Republicans than Democrats.

They both suck - every single one of them - BECAUSE they affiliate with evil parties and they ought to know better by now. There was no such thing as a "Good Nazi".

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   13:13:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Liberator (#72)

Are you REALLY comparing Reagan to Romney?

Yes I am.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   13:15:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Vicomte13 (#74) (Edited)

Do you indict all Democrats? Yes. Why?

How much time do I have?

By DEFAULT Democrats support abortion. Big Government. An over-officious, immoral government. Presidents who abuse and defy the constitution, We-the-People, commit treason, and routinely lie. By DEFAULT Democrats are anti-Freedom, anti-constitution, and hypocritical. By DEFAULT Democrats are unable to discern reality from fantasy, lies from truth, good from evil.

You will tell me that you indict them because they SUPPORT a party that is power crazed, corrupt, and does evil things, and that after of these years they ought to KNOW BETTER, so they have no excuse.

And you would be right.

Now turn the mirror around. The same thing is true of Republicans.

WRONG. We come full circle once again because ONLY the establishments Republican fit into your default catagory.

It is entirely fair to tar ALL Republicans with the perennial evils of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party has done exactly what it is doing, which is promote crony capitalism, since 1868. There has been more than enough time to see it, because it's obvious. If Republican rank and file choose not to see it, they are no different than Democrats: willfully ignorant and blinded by partisanship, and there is no more excuse for Republicans than Democrats.

Unfortunately, you're locked into a rigid dogma that just does not apply. I understand your bitterness; I can relate to your resentment due to real betrayal of the Republican Party. But there are two wings of the GOP, and one has not been displaced. Until/IF that happens, things will change. If not, things will continue getting worse. Btw -- belief in the myth that Democrats actually care about "economic equality" is one of the Dem Party's biggest lies of all. In practice, it requires the demolition of the US Constitution.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   13:27:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

Well then you *have* lost your marbles.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   13:28:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13 (#74) (Edited)

They both suck - every single one of them - BECAUSE they affiliate with evil parties and they ought to know better by now. There was no such thing as a "Good Nazi".

But one Party sucks TOTALLY.

With one party you can breathe through a tiny straw. With the other there IS no straw. Does THAT matter?? YES. Because it's the difference between Life and Death. Attribute THAT life-saving straw to the conservative wing of the GOP (for the moment.)

There may not have been such a thing as "good Nazi," but there was indeed such a thing as "good German."

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   13:31:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#73)

The Church is not as rich as you think it is.

The wealth of individual RCC churches should not part of this conversation. By "Church," I'm assuming RCC Central, aka the Vatican.

Several centuries of the accrued vast wealth by the Vatican will never be known. It's not as though they can be audited. Not even the Nazis dared intrude into the Vatican's financials. It might be rather embarrassing, given the recent Pope's LOUD criticism of Capitalism.

Liberator  posted on  2015-08-01   13:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Liberator (#79)

he wealth of individual RCC churches should not part of this conversation. By "Church," I'm assuming RCC Central, aka the Vatican.

Several centuries of the accrued vast wealth by the Vatican will never be known. It's not as though they can be audited. Not even the Nazis dared intrude into the Vatican's financials. It might be rather embarrassing, given the recent Pope's LOUD criticism of Capitalism.

Well, if the price of getting people to recognize that, under the commandment of God, we ARE our brothers' keeper, and we DO have the responsibility, as children, as parents, as neighbors, as voters in a state, to take care of all of the people around us, cradle to grave - and to protect them before the cradle, and to try to set them on the right path for what happens after the grave - if the price for that is the complete liquidation of the Catholic Church, selling all of its property, auctioning off the art, opening up the bank accounts of the Vatican and the parishes and all the Holy Orders, pooling them, and having all of that go to poverty relief, and everafter operating the Church as an unpaid clergy, preaching in houses and fields, like Jesus and the Apostles, with no rectories and no salaried priests with health insurance and retirement checks - if that is the price required to force the issue of what we are required to also do through government, and personally, until the needs are met - then fine. I'm for it.

Dissolve the material church and return to a spiritual church only. The Catholics first, and then also the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians - all of them. Christianity can be preached in private homes and public parts, by unpaid clergy, just like in China. The visible Church of building and meeting halls and paid professional clergy can disappear. If that is the price that you require in order to turn the conversation back to the focus on dealing with the permanent economic problem of mankind: weakness, dependency, poverty, illness, death, and the need for the whole society to make sure that the least of us all has his needs met and his dignity preserved, then I am ready, willing and eager to return to the pure example of Jesus and the Apostles and dismantle the corporate church, tear down its buildings, sell the land, empty its accounts, lay off the paid clergy - shut it all down. End all the tax breaks - with the Church down, synagogue and mosque and private charity get no tax breaks either.

Let it just be men, businesses and government, with Church a voluntary, unpaid, unpropertied organization.

And once we've done all that, the need will still remain to care for the unborn, and the born, and to educate, and to ensure people have housing, and to ensure everybody has food, and to ensure that everybody has medical care, and to ensure that everybody is provided for in his or her old age.

Everybody, not just Americans. Chinese, Indians, Africans, Mexicans and Indonesians too.

"Am I my brother's keeper?" was an insolent question asked by Cain to God.

Jesus answered it. Yes, you are. Lover your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all.

If your price for loving our neighbor as ourselves, for getting to that conversation, is the complete dissolution of corporate Christianity and a return to the unpaid, completely charitable, unpropertied Christianity of Jesus and the Apostles. then so be it. It is a price well worth paying.

Since I have no POWER to compel the Catholics, the Bapists and the Presbyterians to sell their buildings, empty their accounts, lay off their clergy and turn into Home Church movements, what would you have me do, then?

I would have YOU leave the Republican or Democrat Parties, because they are dishonest and evil and will not change. So, since the Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Nazarene and Evangelical Churches, owned and operated by their respective paid clergy, will never dissolve themselves and cut off their pay, would you have me, then, renounce my affiliation with all Churches, because they have property?

It is a fair question. I don't think that the Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, et al, Churches really are the equivalent of the Republican and Democrat Parties. I think they are better than that. However, your question, aimed directly at the possessions of the Church, implies that they are. It would appear that you are saying to me that because the Catholic Church doesn't divest itself of its possessions, its no different than what I say the Republican and Democrat Parties are.

And that may be a fair point. I would say that applies equally to all Christian Churches that own buildings and have paid clergy. The Catholics pay their clergy peanuts relative to the others. A Catholic priest makes maybe $25,000 a year, but he has his house, medical care, education and retirement provided for him. And of course he has no children to support. Other clergy of mega churches make millions per year. All of that, Catholic and Protestant, would need to be liquidated.

And if they won't (and they won't), I guess you'd be telling me that to be consistent, I would need to disassociate myself from all Christian Churches that own property or have a paid clergy.

And if I did so, if I walked out of the Catholic Church and ceased going to any Church, because they own property and pay clergy, and that isn't what Jesus did, and you insist on liquidation as the standard, will you then be ready to acknowledge that you, too, should walk out of the evil Republican Party (or Democrat) - that it is better to be alone than to be affiliated with something that has moral taint?

And then can we have the discussion of what God demands. Does God demand that a man separate himself from those things which have moral taint? Does he? I perceive moral taint, black as hell, in the ideology and behavior of the Republican and Democrat parties.

You perceive moral taint in the Catholic Church.

So, is that what you're asking me, to renounce the Catholic Church because it is immoral in your eyes. That is what I am asking you to do with the Republican Party: renounce it because it is immoral. Are you throwing that back at me and saying that I must also renounce my affiliation, to organized Christianity, for the same reason?

And if I pay that price in order to have the conversation with you - if I walk out of the Church because it is tainted and compromised, in your eyes - will you, likewise, walk out of the Republican Party and your Church, because the Republicans are tainted and compromised, and because your Church has all of the same financial flaws as the Catholics: owns buildings, has endowments, has big cash flow, etc.

Yes?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-01   14:57:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (81 - 124) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com