Hillary Clinton officially launching her presidential run on Sunday- Page 12

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 9:08am

Sorry PJ. But that's a load of BS.

I've spent pretty much my entire adult life working with the poor. I'm the director of a non profit mental health clinic located in an inner city high school. In addition I do a ton of advocacy work on issues surrounding poverty.

And over the past 8 years I've watched things get worse for people living in poverty. I've seen the number of homeless kids explode in my school. There is not one class in session at the school where I work that doesn't have at least one homeless student in it. Most have more than one. I've seen the horrible effects of Obama's disastrous education policy (which Clinton seems to be on board with). I've watched families I work with get their food stamps cut by a bill signed into law by President Obama. I've watched as employees in my program, all of whom have masers degrees, have to get a second job so they can afford things like child care. The poor are getting demonized, the middle class is shrinking, and this is all happening under a Democratic president.

Income inequality is at record levels in this country. It's a crisis. And as her own record shows, Hillary Clinton is not the person to solve this problem. She's pro Wall Street, pro fracking, she voted for the Iraq war, by all accounts she was the most hawkish member of the Obama administration. It's not that I don't think Clinton is a perfect candidate, I think she's an awful one.

If you think Goldman Sachs money is more noble than Koch bros money, just because the candidate has a D after her name, you're fooling yourself.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 9:24am

You may think she's awful, but the alternatives are far, far worse.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 9:47am

There will be better alternatives to Clinton in the democratic primaries.

If Clinton gets the nomination there will be better alternatives on the ballot than the Democratic or Republican nominee.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 10:22am

And none of those can beat the Kochs putting $900 million behind Scott Walker or whoever the Republican candidate is.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 10:23am

If you think Goldman Sachs money is more noble than Koch bros money, just because the candidate has a D after her name, you're fooling yourself.

Bingo.

Also, the Koch brothers are horrendous but it should be noted that David Koch (one of the brothers) has recently come out in support of gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and ending all military intervention in the middle east. That "progress" is worth noting.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 11:43am

I love that the centrist loves the three Ayn Randian talking points and lists them as "progress."  That last one's a real terrific idea.  Big gay eye roll.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 12:11pm

 

He's a terribly sweet man with a terribly un-sweet agenda.

Here's how they plant to spend that $900 million:

Politico: Secret Koch memo outlines plans for 2016 Documents detail plans to beef up the network’s state-of-the-art data system and pay hundreds of staff embedded in local communities across the country

 

 

[dented146]

Posted: 4/25/15 at 12:18pm

Thanks for posting The New Yorker comments. I read every word and, to me, for the most part, it seems to find ways to explain away bad behavior when the first appearance is far more credible. It can be seen from different points of view.

I agree with Erik that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, for that matter, are best served by having a candidate of high character who is focused on the issues. And I do not subscribe to the notion that someone with whom I disagree can not have good character. People should know for whom they are voting. A year of argument as to Hillary's character does not make her a stronger candidate. I would prefer a race focused on the issues. Let the people decide whether our national attention should be directed on the people like the ones under Erik's care or on international terrorism. Or, more importantly, what should be the balance and I would love honest responses. That seems to be the problem: getting honest responses.

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/1/15 at 7:02am

Hillary Clinton vows to address problems she and her husband helped cause.

"...Clinton’s evolution has often seemed (and pardon the Clinton cliché here) calculated and self-enriching, and it’s hard to hear her saying the words she said yesterday without recalling other times the former Secretary of State has changed her mind when it no longer benefits her.

Updated On: 5/1/15 at 07:02 AM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 5/8/15 at 4:12pm

“Hillary – I’m going to have to return to London. My country needs me.

Well, at least, the Labour Party does.”

“But David – I’m about to embark on the greatest challenge of my career. I need you here with me.

Well, at least, away from the media.”

Updated On: 5/8/15 at 04:12 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/14/15 at 10:32am

Errata.

POLITICO: 'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 7:34am

"Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday.

The sum, which makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality."

So the Clinton's officially join the 1% club. Not bad for running a "charitable organization"!

Let them eat cake

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 10:16am

Don't worry. PeeJay will find a way to shrug this off and brush it away. Nothing will get in the way of these rabid cronies buying their way into political office. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 12:21pm

The way you shrug off the screamingly obvious differences between the Supreme Court appointees nominated by these politicians you are too much of a dullard to see are not "exactly the same"? 

[Is this the part where you call me a POS, a dumbass, or a professor?]

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 1:29pm

 

Hey, all you leftist anti-Hillaryites--the NY Times says you're all falling for the bait being left for you by the right-wing.

 

NY TIMES: The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton

 

STOP TAKING THE BAIT! Don't be the lefties who elected another Bush. (Or worse.)

Updated On: 5/17/15 at 01:29 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 1:33pm

No kidding. This doesn't apply to the 'band because he calls himself a "centrist," which he thinks is a more palatable name than right wing libertarian. 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/17/15 at 2:15pm

"If Clinton gets the nomination there will be better alternatives on the ballot than the Democratic or Republican nominee."

And they won't win, and the people who are unhappy with the two-party candidates get to remain unhappy.

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 7:15am

That New York Times article was pretty hilarious.

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 7:50am

We're not fools who don't like these people, and yes if you are a leftist it makes sense to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 7:57am

This morning's Washington Post:

 

WASHINGTON POST: Hillary Rodham Clinton is running as the most liberal Democratic presidential front-runner in decades, with positions on issues from gay marriage to immigration that would, in past elections, have put her at her party’s precarious left edge

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 8:58am

Ya, that's called "pandering for votes" in the political world. Similar to how she will govern in favor of special interest groups once she gains control, just as every other politician in history has done. Politics is corrupt and we need to break it down to then build it up again. F*ck Hillary, Jeb, Martin, Marco, and any other corrupt sleaze-ball who joins the race. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 10:05am

Updated On: 5/18/15 at 10:05 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 10:23am

Bless you, PJ! I should just post that every time instead of my ranting raving diatribes. It best encapsulates my feelings toward our nation's current political system. 

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 10:27am

Clinton has come out strongly for overturning Citizens United, indicating any justice she appoints would have to be in favor of overturning it.  That by itself gets my vote.  

Those who think both parties are the same are seem to ignore the Supreme Court, which will most likely have multiple justices up for replacement within the next few years, and is fundamental in maintaining and recovering some of the protections that were afforded the middle class, minorities and the disenfranchised in the past 50 years. A person who thinks that there is no difference between a Thomas or Scalia and a Sotomayor or Ginbsburg is someone too obtuse and simple to be considered thoughtful.

 

Updated On: 5/18/15 at 10:27 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 10:41am

Follow the money/history. SCOTUS is a "pay for play" system propagated by both sides of the aisle. Find the connections between each SC Justice and their respective nominator... you'll find major contributors, trusted advisors, and silent political partners. They're all hypocritical traitors.