Reply With Quote
"progressive change from Trump."
nobody will be able to make "progressive" change with red and slave states controlling Congress. They will continue to crapfiy govt and America.
It's why I think we will get more progressive change from Trump. She is horrible, just horrible. She pretends as if incremental change will be easier to achieve but the republicans aren't going to work with her on ANYTHING progressive. If there are large democrat majorities in congress, then you may as well push for actual large scale progressive change.
"progressive change from Trump."
nobody will be able to make "progressive" change with red and slave states controlling Congress. They will continue to crapfiy govt and America.
No, but Trump can trick them into doing it.
A strong president makes his case personally to the American people so necessary reform saturates the mindset of the entire nation instead of being bottlenecked at the top by rhetoric and obstructionism. Hence why Bernie is turning heads. Instead of tempering expectations, he says to Americans, "heres what we want - how do we get it?" That message resonates much more effectively than Hillary and establishment republican x's vague promises of maintaining the status quo.
red states, slave states, the Congresscritters don't give a about Bernie, The American People, and what any Dem Pres says.
The ing Repugs don't even give a about their own base supporting same-sex marriage, strict background gun checks, etc, etc.
None of you naive people understand that gerrymandering, voter suppression, suckering Christian Taliban with "social issues" has locked a load extremist Repugs into Congress beyond the reach The Great American People.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-16-2016 at 05:12 AM.
this is losing her mind.
Hillary Clinton and the Dogs of War
Former Secretary of State Clinton grudgingly admits her Iraq War vote was a “mistake,” but it was not a one-off misjudgment. Clinton has consistently stood for a war-like U.S. foreign policy that ignores international law and relies on brinkmanship and military force
her record as Secretary of State was very different from that of her successor, John Kerry, who has overseen groundbreaking diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran, Cuba and, in a more limited context, even with Russia and Syria.
In fact, Clinton’s use of the term “diplomacy” in talking about her own record is idiosyncratic in that it refers almost entirely to assembling “coalitions” to support U.S. threats, wars and sanctions against other countries, rather than to peacefully resolving international disputes without the threat or use of force, as normally understood by the word “diplomacy” and as required by the UN Charter.
There is another term for what Clinton means when she says “diplomacy,” and that is “brinksmanship,” which means threatening war to back up demands on other governments. In the real world, brinksmanship frequently leads to war when neither side will back down, at which point its only value or purpose is to provide a political narrative to justify aggression.
The two main “diplomatic” achievements Clinton gives herself credit for are:
assembling the coalition of NATO and the Arab monarchies that bombed Libya into endless, intractable chaos; and
imposing painful sanctions on the people of Iran over what U.S. intelligence agencies concluded by 2007 was a peaceful civilian nuclear program.
That Clinton can peddle such deceptive rhetoric to national prime-time television audiences and yet still be considered trustworthy on foreign policy by many Americans is a sad indictment of the U.S. corporate media’s coverage of foreign policy, including a willful failure to distinguish between diplomacy and brinksmanship.
But Michael Crowley, now the senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, formerly with Timeand the New Republic, has analyzed Clinton’s foreign policy record over the course of her career, and his research has shed light on her Iraq War vote, her personal influences and her underlying views of U.S. foreign policy, all of which deserve serious scrutiny from American voters.
The results of Crowley’s research reveal that Clinton believes firmly in the post-Cold War ambition to establish the U.S. threat or use of force as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs.
She does not believe that the U.S. should be constrained by the UN Charter or other rules of international law from threatening or attacking other countries when it can make persuasive political arguments for doing so.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/1...e-dogs-of-war/
iow, Hillary is fully establishment in supporting, promoting the USA's military/corporate planetary empire and garrisoning, and of course, the corporate welfare (without drug testing!) and $Ts in wealth redistribution of the MIC.
Hillary Clinton, With Little Notice, Vows to Embrace an Extremist Agenda on Israel
Former President Bill Clinton on Monday met in secret (no press allowed) with roughly 100 leaders of South Florida’s Jewish community, and, as the Times of Israel reports, “He vowed that, if elected, Hillary Clinton would make it one of her top priorities to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance.” He also “stressed the close bond that he and his wife have with the State of Israel.”
It may be tempting to dismiss this as standard, vapid Clintonian politicking: adeptly telling everyone what they want to hear and making them believe it. After all, is it even physically possible to “strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance” beyond what it already entails: billions of dollars in American taxpayer money transferred every year, sophisticated weapons fed to Israel as it bombs its defenseless neighbors, blindly loyal diplomatic support and protection for everything it does?
But Bill Clinton’s vow of even greater support for Israel is completely consistent with what Hillary Clinton herself has been telling American Jewish audiences for months. In November, she published an op-ed in The Forward in which she vowed to strengthen relations not only with Israel, but also with its extremist prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
“I have stood with Israel my entire career,” she proclaimed. Indeed, “as secretary of state, [she] requested more assistance for Israel every year.” Moreover, she added, “I defended Israel from isolation and attacks at the United Nations and other international settings, including opposing the biased Goldstone report [which do ented widespread Israeli war crimes in Gaza].”
Clinton media operatives such as Jonathan Alter have tried to undermine the Sanders campaign by claiming that only Sanders, but not Clinton, has committed the sin of criticizing Obama: “Hillary stopped criticizing Obama in 2008, when [Obama] was nominee; Sanders stopped in 2015, so he could run as Dem.”
Aside from being creepy — it’s actually healthy to criticize a president and pathological to refuse to do so — this framework is also blatantly false. Clinton, in her book and in interviews, has often criticized Obama for being insufficiently hawkish: making clear that she wanted to be more militaristic than the Democratic president who has literally bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries (thus far).
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/...nda-on-israel/
I can't wait for boutons to do a 180 when Hillary wins the primaries.
Don't wait! right now, GFY
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-20-2016 at 03:43 PM.
Clinton’s Campaign Just Got Busted Impersonating Union Nurses in Nevada
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is attempting to trick Bernie Sanders supporters in Nevada into voting for Clinton by disguising themselves as nurses affiliated with the National Nurses United union (NNU), which has thrown its support behind Sanders.
NNU executive director RoseAnn DeMoro caught Clinton staffers red-handed changing from blue Hillary Clinton campaign shirts into red shirts of the same shade as the red shirts NNU members are wearing, in an apparent attempt to confuse voters:
The shirts Hillary’s campaign workers are wearing are nearly identical to the shirts NNU nurses wear on the campaign trail with Bernie:
The t-shirt dupe was reported just after precincts opened for today’s Nevada caucus, which may very well shape the entire trajectory of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses. The stakes for Bernie Sanders couldn’t be higher, as a win in a state like Nevada, with prominent Latino/Hispanic representation, would prove his viability with voters of color.
http://usuncut.com/politics/clintons...ses-in-nevada/
Cornel West: ‘Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics’
Philosopher and Bernie Sanders surrogate Cornel West told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that Hillary Clinton was like the disgraced band Milli Vanilli because she only gave “lip service” to social justice policies.
“Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics,” West charged. “She lip-syncs, she gives lip service. But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported, not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?”
West also pointed out that “corporate media” have not taken Sanders’ campaign seriously.
“We know Donald Trump is a Frankenstein of corporate media,” he explained. “They cover every Twitter [message], they cover every speech, every word. If Bernie had that kind of coverage, people would know who he is.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/corn...ican-politics/
"Sister" ??
Hillary is the foolish idealist: Clinton derides Sanders as naive, but has no plan for battling GOP obstruction
Throughout this Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly cast herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” and her opponent, Bernie Sanders, as a foolish idealist whose ideas “sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world.”
“I want you to understand, I will not promise you something I cannot deliver,” she told a South Carolina crowd last Friday. “I will not make promises I know I cannot keep.”
But, contrary to these assurances of realism and pragmatism, Clinton has actually set forth a bold, sweeping agenda to transform America.
Her campaign website pledges that
“Hillary will overturn Citizens United;
end secret, unaccountable money in politics;
end the era of mass incarceration;
enact comprehensive immigration reform;
make high-quality education available to every child;
raise the minimum wage; [and]
tackle dangerous risks in the big banks.”
Such intrepid ideas have little chance of passage in a United States Congress controlled by Republican lawmakers who are still trying to repeal President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, in an election year with narrow chances for a Democratic re-takeover of the Senate, and even less for the House.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/21/hill...p_obstruction/
Hillary's "promises she can keep" are bul . So calling Bernie's programs as undeliverable is Hillary bull .
Neither one can do an progressive stuff because the Repugs are non-compromising, strict obstructionists.
The risk with Hillary, as it was with Bill, is that she will sign really nasty Repug , where Bernie wouldn't.
Mothers of Trayvon, Garner, and Bland all supporting Hillary, officially
just needs michael brown's mama to finish the picture
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trayv...171144425.html
Hillary wouldn't do for black people, and she supported Bill in all the damage he did with welfare reform and financial reform. Of course, Bill's financial reforms led the the Banksters' Great Depression which hurt black people severely, as always.
they disagree
She gonna buy their gas and pay their mortgage
clinton phone
Did Obama start the free phones program?
That looks like a big fat NO to us.
The cell phone distribution program did begin in 2008, the year Obama was elected president, but that is a coincidence. Let’s look more closely at the facts.
Notice that earlier we said Link-Up helps fund “installation.” What installation does a cell phone have? None. So why is installation part of Link-Up, which is under the Lifeline program umbrella? Because, the whole thing began back in 1996 when the Federal Communications Commission authorized the programs for landline phones. At that time it provided discounts on landline phones only, for obvious reasons.
To this day the government provides discounts on landline phones for financially disadvantaged people in the United States and U.S. territories. The Link-Up portion helps with the installation and the Lifeline Assistance part helps with the monthly bills, to the tune of roughly ten dollars a month.
So, the subsidization of phones began under President Clinton, and has continued under Presidents Bush and Obama.
Over that time, the usage of cell phones rose and the costs came down. Assuming one believes in the Lifeline program in the first place, and remembering that the FCC has mandated the program, it only makes sense to expand the phone assistance program to include cell phones. So, in 2008 the first application of this program for mobile phones began when a company called Tracfone started their Safelink Wireless service in Tennessee.
Aha, some say, that’s the same year Obama was elected! Well, that’s true. But the service in Tennessee was launched three months prior to Obama being elected. And that means the discussion and approval of the extension of the program occurred under President Bush’s watch.
The Bush Phone, anyone?
How did the Obama Phone rumors start?
Just how did this “Obama Phone” rumor get started anyway? Back around early 2009, emails began circulating that called the free cell phone program the Obama Phone. And you know what happens when emails start getting passed around — few people verify them, and just simply forward them to everyone in their contact list. And the people who forward them believe that Barack Obama has socialist tendencies, so there was a willing audience. Here is just one sample email:
FW: Obamaphone… no joke!!Variations of these emails persist to this day. Like President Obama or not, they are simply false.
I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.”
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone
You rightwingnut assholes fall for the emails EVERY ING TIME!
Benghazi!
Emails!
Christmas card list!
Whitewater!
Benghazi!
Obama born in Kenya!
ting on yourself
Last edited by spurraider21; 02-23-2016 at 04:25 PM.
who said I was talking to you?
i said clinton phone
you immediately replied with an article about obamaphone (which responds directly to my comment). in your post you said "you rightwingnuts"... so a post responding to my post said "you rightwingnuts."
so it is YOU who said you were talking to me
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
