Herbert Hoover was a great humanitarian and great Secretary of Commerce. It's not like he caused the crash in 1929, he just wasn't ready for it -- and who could be?
He was both those things. He also should have vetoed Smoot-Hawley, which deepened and lengthened the depression but that would be getting into policy.
The answer to EVERY "what would you do if X foreign situation arose?" question:
"Get as much information as possible, talk to my advisors, and make an educated decision on what action to take."
Don't fall into the stupid trap of expecting candidates to tell you what they would do in a future foreign situation. There are so many considerations that go into those decisions that nothing they say now except the above would be worth anything anyway.
P.S. Maybe Hillary Clinton (or maybe her speech writers) actually just likes Star Wars.
P.S. Maybe Hillary Clinton (or maybe her speech writers) actually just likes Star Wars.
You know there were focus groups involved before they would say that on national television. I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong with that -- she's running a campaign that is constantly attacked for actions as minute as going to the bathroom, she needs to be that cautious -- but way more went into that decision than "we like Star Wars".
Clinton is getting more focused public scrutiny on utterly trivial and mundane matters than probably any presidential candidate in American history.
The GOP laser focused on her in the 90s and kept it up forever, both because of straight-up unabashed sexism and because she was a threat to their own power structure and wasn't working within their system.
Once you do, you'll probably realize that your constant Hillary bashing in this thread comes off as 99% sad sexism. Or, at least, if it isn't 99% sexism, why we expect more from your "arguments" against her.
Y'know how when you vote, they give you a sticker?
Well, imagine if instead of a sticker, they gave you a sausage in bread. A pretty decent sausage, too, like the sort you'd cook a few of for dinner, not a cheap lips-and-arseholes frank that comes in a hundred pack. You can usually grab a drink for a dollar, or some cakes, cookies, bake stall sort of stuff in some places - which goes to charity, since you're not allowed to actually sell things for profit on the grounds of a polling place.
The GOP laser focused on her in the 90s and kept it up forever, both because of straight-up unabashed sexism and because she was a threat to their own power structure and wasn't working within their system.
This.
Once upon a time, Clinton was an outsider in every way. She was using the First Ladyship like no one had since Eleanor Roosevelt. The reason she's establishment now isn't (only) because she sold out, it's also because she took over.
She's been doing politics on the Hill for twenty-three years. Cruz and Rubio hadn't even finished college when she was First Lady. And she's been dealing with this sexist bullshit every second since then.
Where are the kids going to go when the school gets shut down?
Some will go to nice private schools. Others to public schools farther away. A few will fall through the cracks all together. As for Hillary, I don't think she particularly cares what happens to any of the "losers"
Once you do, you'll probably realize that your constant Hillary bashing in this thread comes off as 99% sad sexism. Or, at least, if it isn't 99% sexism, why we expect more from your "arguments" against her.
I read it and the fact that Hillary had to endure sexist shit sucks, but I'm not about to waste a single iota of my time pitying an old white millionaire.
My point was to Muppet, and that every single one of his complaints about Hillary is indistinguishable from those talked about in that article.
I also find it hard to pity any old white millionaire, but even then it would be nice to feel no pity for the old white millionaire men for the same reasons I feel no pity for the old white millionaire women. It seems being a woman trumps being an old white millionaire, even at the top. Or especially at the top.
Hillary's voting record on privacy issues is my main concern. She has consistently voted for very authoritarian anti-privacy bills and she supports backdoors in encryption and expansion of domestic and international surveillance, as well as espousing the kind of aggressive "world police" attitude that I've always hated. Bernie's record on these issues is almost directly opposite hers, and that's one of the main reasons I'm hoping for a Sanders win.
As for Hillary, I don't think she particularly cares what happens to any of the "losers"
Why do you say that?
Because it is the only way someone would able to do something like shut down and essentially privatize public school districts and live with themselves. I'm not saying empathy leads automatically to sympathy but if a neoliberal politician like Clinton was racked with guilt over every single person that their policies have hurt they would probably have a break down. Not that an individual's feeling matter all that much when the political economy of the nation is the way that it is.
I know a handful of staggeringly rich people who are generous with their time & wealth. The terrible people are usually on TV. I figure the good ones don't broadcast their decency the way the bad ones broadcast their dickishness.
I know a handful of staggeringly rich people who are generous with their time & wealth. The terrible people are usually on TV. I figure the good ones don't broadcast their decency the way the bad ones broadcast their dickishness.
We can agree to disagree, but I'm not saying that rich people are Snidely Whiplash cartoonish villains. Some of them are awful Ayn Rand worshippers in public though many know not to let that get into the press. I'm pretty sure most of them are can be urbane and charming. A vanishingly small few have even been political revolutionaries and they were okay people some of the time.
What I am saying is that rich people get rich and stay rich through exploitation, whether it is through exploiting their workers, privatization, accumulation by dispossession, or the legal process and tax code makes no difference. Rich people usually utilize all of these methods. No amount of charity and highmindedness could ever balance out the damage that they have done to get to where they are in the first place, especially if they want to continue to stay rich.
Luke I couldn't care less if you want to take the easy and predictable route of dismissing my dislike for Hillary as simple sexism. It's just not worth engaging you on it.
Her record is preposterous, her policy stances are lukewarm and reek of disingenuity, and I wouldn't trust her to guard a landfill. Sorry.
Warren I'd have (almost) no problem with. Hillary may as well be Ted Cruz.
And no, she's not really being attacked much in the media outside of outlets that nobody but drooling morons pay attention to. Meanwhile the Sanders campaign is being actively sabotaged by the DNC on her behalf and nobody says boo about that.
Yes, they would push for the same policies and stamp congressional republican agendas like dismantling Planned Parenthood and undoing the ACA. No difference at all. SCOTUS wouldn't be any different when the appointments come...
She doesn't give a fuck about the most pronounced gulf between rich and poor (and their relative political power) since the Depression. Along with this comes her indifference outside of lip service to nearly every social issue Bernie talks about. I seriously wonder whether you've even read the man's platform or his speeches let alone his voting record in Congress which backs nearly all of it up in nearly all cases.
Then there's Hillary who's wealthy as shit, has no empathy for people who can't make rent or are bankrupted by a single hospital bill, no real interest in addressing any issue of the kind.
The ACA is half assed anyway and it hasn't ended medical bankruptcy or even improved access to anything but the most basic care. Even if she supports keeping it (which Sanders does as well as expanding it into an actually credible program) she's fine to leave things as they are. That alone is enough to dismiss her.
Planned Parenthood would hardly even be an issue if universal healthcare was here and credibly funded and administered as it is in every first world country but our own.
No, I'm not anynore frightened by Hillary's SCOTUS appointments than Cruz's. I don't believe for a minute that she cares about justice either legal or social or economic.
Your arguments are basically to repeat a litany of DNC talking points. There's nothing there.
The single biggest issue in the US today is economic inequality and the resulting aristocratic rule. It impedes or halts progress on literally every other problem. Hillary isn't looking to disrupt that even slightly and that is why she's not credible while Sanders is.
Muppet literally thinks that we can be a Socialist wonderland in 2 years. So with that idea in his head, you are not really going to convince him that a pragmatic choice is a good call. He wants a idealist radical that he isn't even going to get from Bernie Sanders AND either way is not going to happen because of congress anyhow. Soooo because of that he's a "watch the world burn" type where he wants things to get SOOOOO bad that maybe instead of devolving into gangs of First of the North Star type tribes which is most likely, that a revolution will occur giving him the government he actually wants.
//Chance of this happening 0.0001% of a good outcome.
Comments
"Get as much information as possible, talk to my advisors, and make an educated decision on what action to take."
Don't fall into the stupid trap of expecting candidates to tell you what they would do in a future foreign situation. There are so many considerations that go into those decisions that nothing they say now except the above would be worth anything anyway.
P.S. Maybe Hillary Clinton (or maybe her speech writers) actually just likes Star Wars.
Yeah, they are...
The GOP laser focused on her in the 90s and kept it up forever, both because of straight-up unabashed sexism and because she was a threat to their own power structure and wasn't working within their system.
http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/135664586198/likable
Once you do, you'll probably realize that your constant Hillary bashing in this thread comes off as 99% sad sexism. Or, at least, if it isn't 99% sexism, why we expect more from your "arguments" against her.
Well, imagine if instead of a sticker, they gave you a sausage in bread. A pretty decent sausage, too, like the sort you'd cook a few of for dinner, not a cheap lips-and-arseholes frank that comes in a hundred pack. You can usually grab a drink for a dollar, or some cakes, cookies, bake stall sort of stuff in some places - which goes to charity, since you're not allowed to actually sell things for profit on the grounds of a polling place.
Once upon a time, Clinton was an outsider in every way. She was using the First Ladyship like no one had since Eleanor Roosevelt. The reason she's establishment now isn't (only) because she sold out, it's also because she took over.
And she's been dealing with this sexist bullshit every second since then.
I also find it hard to pity any old white millionaire, but even then it would be nice to feel no pity for the old white millionaire men for the same reasons I feel no pity for the old white millionaire women. It seems being a woman trumps being an old white millionaire, even at the top. Or especially at the top.
Also most rich people are terrible people.
What I am saying is that rich people get rich and stay rich through exploitation, whether it is through exploiting their workers, privatization, accumulation by dispossession, or the legal process and tax code makes no difference. Rich people usually utilize all of these methods. No amount of charity and highmindedness could ever balance out the damage that they have done to get to where they are in the first place, especially if they want to continue to stay rich.
Her record is preposterous, her policy stances are lukewarm and reek of disingenuity, and I wouldn't trust her to guard a landfill. Sorry.
Warren I'd have (almost) no problem with. Hillary may as well be Ted Cruz.
Making that equivalence is laughable, dude.
Then there's Hillary who's wealthy as shit, has no empathy for people who can't make rent or are bankrupted by a single hospital bill, no real interest in addressing any issue of the kind.
The ACA is half assed anyway and it hasn't ended medical bankruptcy or even improved access to anything but the most basic care. Even if she supports keeping it (which Sanders does as well as expanding it into an actually credible program) she's fine to leave things as they are. That alone is enough to dismiss her.
Planned Parenthood would hardly even be an issue if universal healthcare was here and credibly funded and administered as it is in every first world country but our own.
No, I'm not anynore frightened by Hillary's SCOTUS appointments than Cruz's. I don't believe for a minute that she cares about justice either legal or social or economic.
Your arguments are basically to repeat a litany of DNC talking points. There's nothing there.
The single biggest issue in the US today is economic inequality and the resulting aristocratic rule. It impedes or halts progress on literally every other problem. Hillary isn't looking to disrupt that even slightly and that is why she's not credible while Sanders is.
//Chance of this happening 0.0001% of a good outcome.