advertisement


Hillary Clinton announces she's running

+1

But she was pro-Iraq war, pro-Wall St, etc. I'm not a fan of Hillary.

PS- I like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown.

I agree, but they're not electable, and in lieu of a good candidate, the best one can hope for is to at least keep the GOP out.
 
I never cease to be amazed at the general capacity for ignoring policy, intent, capability, motivation, etc., etc., etc., in favour of a judgement made on the shape of someones face.
If a candidate has nice, say, boobs, male voters are at least sure of what they get. Policy, intent, capability, motivation ? These are just promises.
 
I agree, but they're not electable, and in lieu of a good candidate, the best one can hope for is to at least keep the GOP out.

That is very true. The GOP controlling both houses and the presidency would be an(other) unmitigated disaster for the US and the rest of the world.
 
I strongly disagree with the no-vote approach. Voters should clearly show the power of their say-so matters even if the field of candidates isn't inspiring. The reason they are not inspiring is for the reason I'm about to state. In the meantime, there actually are lesser evils to make sure you vote for. Otherwise, do you want Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum ? :confused:

The post Maxflynn quoted speaking about the hold of money and corporate power might better have elaborated on the way it effectively controls federal politicians through the system of legalised bribes, called lobbying.

Also over time, the Supreme Court has been drip-drip packed by Presidents with Judges who will see things the corporate way when the cases come to them. Most stupidly, notoriously and harmfully, now with this "corporations are people" shit and how their money is "speech".

Instead of not voting, it would help so much if the people became involved.

A - if not the - fundamental thing needed to be done to break the nasty system, is to outlaw big money in politics.

I am also convinced that it can be done.

I'm going to repeat here what Cenk Uygar puts over when he explains and promotes Wolf-Pac, in my own way.

www.wolf-pac.com

The founders suspected that one day federal politics may become so corrupt it would be incapable of reforming itself. So they made sure there were other ways of obtaining constitutional amendments to deal with such situations.
If enough States can agree to a proposal put at State level to call a convention, it will happen. It is possible to call a single issue convention, which is the intention. This will make it more likely to happen and avoid dealing with various other cans of worms a constitutional convention of the States might give rise to.

Wolf-Pac and their activists met with scorn and derision from the establishment. Apparently they stood no change . Well so far they through direct contact, enthusiasm and the quality of their argument, managed to convince majorities in several State legislatures to sign up to the proposal.
Not just Democrats but Republicans too, at State level are sick of the system in Washington. Or enough of them are. Or enough of them know the people are really really sick of it even if they keep re-electing the same corrupt arseholes.

It's true, if you ask people what they think of the system of legalised bribary, Republican voters as much as Democrats hate it.

Did you know, at national level, the candidate with the most money in campaign wins, 95% of the time. :eek:

Ending this is key to "getting the country back".

Obama spoke big about making change to the game in Washington but ended up doing nothing and Cenk thinks, didn't even try.
Hilary is the same or worse. Never mind the label on the tin, Democrat. It means very little in this regard.

There are a lot of determined people campaigning for Wolf-Pac and their success is beginning to snowball.
I truly believe it can succeed.
I wanted to contribute to it but I couldn't , as I am a foreign national.
But I can do a little bit for it, by speaking up for it in places where there are Americans present, and I think there are a few here.

Cenk has done so many clips on the Young Turks channel both directly promoting Wolf-Pac and indirectly where he talks about a problem and points out how things could be different, how they could be changed, IF we got the big money out of politics.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos

I find myself greatly influenced by the common sense, principled consistency and passion of Cenk. He also happens to be one of THE funniest guys on the internet, period. To that end you will get a great laugh from many of the funny stories they also feature on the channel.

So Americans reading this, I say get involved or donate. I am convinced this effort is key. If the goal is achieved then it will be the lynch-pin to changing all the other things that really will "get your country back".
 
And indeed, here I find is Cenk speaking just today about Hillary and this subject.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's another recent and funny clip from Cenk on Hillary.

She's so full of shit !

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where 'somebody' = 'a random nutter'.
many disagreed with her on Facebook too, and I'm not sure about some of her conspiracy theories either, but she's right about the government not being for the people, IMO.

Cloth-ears makes that point much better, and without the tinfoil hat :)
 
many disagreed with her on Facebook too, and I'm not sure about some of her conspiracy theories either, but she's right about the government not being for the people, IMO.

Well, duh. How many US or UK governments have been 'for the people' since universal suffrage was introduced? How can any government be 'for the people', given that 'the people' are in fact numerous individuals with differing needs and preferences?
 
Well, duh. How many US or UK governments have been 'for the people' since universal suffrage was introduced? How can any government be 'for the people', given that 'the people' are in fact numerous individuals with differing needs and preferences?

The post probably needs to be seen in context. As I said Cloth-ears makes the point much better, that being that lobby groups own the government's.

Hillary can promise whatever she likes and just like Obama she might become President on a wave of optimism for change, but she'll not change anything that her benefactors don't want changed!

[US ACCENT] God bless democracy [/US ACCENT]
 
The post probably needs to be seen in context. As I said Cloth-ears makes the point much better, that being that lobby groups own the government's.

Hillary can promise whatever she likes and just like Obama she might become President on a wave of optimism for change, but she'll not change anything that her benefactors don't want changed!

[US ACCENT] God bless democracy [/US ACCENT]

I'm sorry to say that it's always been thus, and almost certainly always will be thus. But even if that wasn't the case, and the lobbyists hands were tied, there will be one group of people whose views (let's say in favour of an 'interventionist' foreign policy) will be diametrically opposed to those of another group of people (those in favour of an 'isolationist' foreign policy). Which of these two opposite viewpoints should the government reflect, if it is to be 'of the people'?
 
I think Hilary is a wonderful person and politician, and the USA deserves to have her as president. God Bless America.
 
Elizabeth Warren is not running, and Rand Paul is not electable. So who is the alternative to Hilary Clinton? Bush? Walker??

The Republican-run states have done a masterful job of gerrymandering. The House of Reprentatives will be Republian-controlled for the foreseeable. The Democrats have a chance of regaining control of the Senate in 2016, but it will be an uphill fight.

The alternative to the current status quo - a Democratic President using the veto to slow down a Republican-led congress - is full Republican control of all branches of government. A Democratic President is the alternative to bombing Iran, outlawing abortion, ending what remains of trade unions, suppressing minority votes, and ending the advancement of rights for the LGBT community. Possibly even worse, for the damage to civil rights could last for decades, would be a Republican President in control of the next round of Supreme Court appointees.

Criticize Clinton as much as you like, but I see no other option for preventing a much worse future direction for the US. Will she accomplish big things like reforming campaign finance laws, or changing the tax code to address income inequality? Doubt it. Will her foreign policy differ significantly from Obama's? Perhaps some, but not dramatically so. Compared to any possible Republican nominee, will she be the lesser of two evils? Of course she will.
 
Good post. Unfortunately, you get zero credit for preventing far worse or limiting damage - ask the Lib Dems. :)
 
I think most people in the world knew she would end up running.
To be honest i have never really understood the differences between republican and democrat.
The lines seemed to have got blurred years ago.
I hope she gives the others a good run for there money.
Why anyone would want another Bush in the white house seems very strange to me?
I can't wait for it to be over here in the UK.
I have given up watching the TV news every day, Fed up with it.
 


advertisement


Back
Top