Real World Event Discussions

Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 15 of 46

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 21, 2016 9:37 PM

Meanwhile, Hillary's latest top donors for April:

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00495861/1073854/sa/11AI

Haim and Cheryl Saban, total $5 million that month. Haim Saban is an Israeli citizen who advocates for Zionism.

Daniel Abraham, $ 2 million that month. Founder of the Daniel Abraham Center for Mideast Peace, and huge donor to Israeli politician Olmert, a former Israeli Primer Minister serving time for corruption.

Alex Soros, son of billionaire George Soros, and major contributor to Jews for Justice and subsequent contributor to progressive causes: $1 million for the month. (And George Soros - dual citizen with Hungary, of Jewish descent, currency manipulator - $7 million so far.)

David Shaw, Jewish computations expert who made his fortune in high-speed trading. $1.5 million that month

Jay and Mary Pritzker, $4.7 million. The Chicago Pritzker family is one of the wealthiest, with its fortune made by Jewish immigrant Jay Pritzker, who founded a law firm and made a number of investments including the Hyatt Hotel Chain. Like Trump, the family continues to make money on the hotel/ real estate business. Penny Pritzker is Obama's current Scy Commerce.

... At the risk of being called an "anti-Semite", do you notice a pattern in Hillary's top/major donors this month?

John Styker, architect. $1.5 million that month.

--------
By comparison, here is a list of millionaire donors ...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-
donors-campaign-money.html

I see millionaire donors to Hillary ... Bush... Rubio... even Rand Paul. Even Trump! Nowhere do I see a millionaire donor to Sanders.

In another article, I read that Trump's run for the Presidency is likely to cost $1 billion. BILLION. I'm sure Hillary's projected costs aren't too different. My god, $2 billion dollars on one political campaign. That money could be spent elsewhere with better effect!

What this research did for me was simply reinforce the idea that politics is completely corrupted. And still, Obama doesn't want young people to become "cynical about politics". What's the message here, Mr President? That anyone can aspire to the highest office as long as they sell themselves to the highest bidders?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Sunday, May 22, 2016 7:48 AM

Does it matter if we get yet another oligarch?

http://graphics.latimes.com/retirement-nomads/#nt=outfit

Too poor to retire and too young to die

At the wise age of 79, Dolores Westfall knows food shopping on an empty stomach is a fool’s errand. On her way to the grocery store last May, she pulled into the Town & Country Family Restaurant to take the edge off her appetite.

After much consideration, she ordered the prime rib special and an iced tea — expensive at $21.36, but the leftovers, wrapped carefully to go, would provide two more lunches.

The problem, she later realized, was that a big insurance bill was coming due. How was she going to pay it? Was she going to tip into insolvency over a plate of prime rib? “I thought I could handle eating and shopping,” she said, “but lunch put me over the top.”

Westfall — 5 feet 1 tall, with a graceful dancer’s body she honed as a tap-dancing teenager — is as stubborn as she is high-spirited. But she finds herself these days in a precarious place: Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning, Westfall left her home in California to live in an aging RV she calls Big Foot, driving from one temporary job to the next.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-na-death-rates-20160129-story.html

Researchers find causes for higher death rates among middle-aged whites

The unexpectedly high mortality (among middle aged whites) — which sets the U.S. apart from other developed nations — has come into focus recently amid a rising toll of drug deaths and suicide.

But the new report from the New York-based Commonwealth Fund suggests that drugs and suicides are only a part of the problem. The full cause of the disturbing trend is likely broader and involves failures in the medical system and profound changes in the economy.

Mortality rates were 60% to 76% higher than they would have been if the trends of the 1980s and 1990s had continued in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Researchers have not found a similar problem among African Americans and Latinos, though a health gap between whites and nonwhites remains. Nor has the problem emerged among working-class residents of Western Europe or other industrialized nations. "The question is: Is it social safety net?" Case said in an interview. "Are working-class people more protected in Europe? Is it universal healthcare?"

... Deaton and Case pointed to a dramatic increase in deaths attributed to drug poisoning, suicide and alcohol-related liver disease ... (but) The Commonwealth Fund researchers (found) ... "Mortality rates for middle-aged whites have stopped declining — or actually increased — across a broad range of health conditions, including most of the leading causes of death" (includimg heart disease).

The states showing the worst trends have high rates of poverty as well as some of the highest rates of smoking and obesity in the country. They also historically have had among the weakest healthcare systems, with high rates of people lacking insurance and poor access to medical care.

"We are witnessing regression that has little precedent in the industrialized world over the past half century," the authors concluded.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-bee
n-forced-left-enough-already

Clinton Camp says She's Been Forced to the Left Enough Already

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:22 AM

Speaking of a corrupt party: Hillary, Debbie and Roberta

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republic
an-party.html

Hillary Clinton Targets Republicans Turned Off by Donald Trump

WILLIAMSON, W.Va. — Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to seize on the turmoil Donald J. Trump’s ascent has caused within the Republican Party, hoping to gain the support of Republican voters and party leaders including former elected officials and retired generals disillusioned by their party’s standard-bearer.

The campaign expects to assemble a “Republicans for Hillary” group, and Mrs. Clinton has, from her days in the Senate and as secretary of state, cultivated strong relationships with prominent Republicans and their top staff members. Mark Salter, a top adviser to Senator John McCain, this week expressed his support for Mrs. Clinton on Twitter minutes after Mr. Trump clinched his party’s nomination. Mrs. Clinton has also enjoyed a strong relationship with former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Republican, who described her as “a superb representative of the United States all over the world.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/opinions/mr-president-fire-wasserman-sch
ultz-jonathan-tasini/index.html

Mr. President, we need a new DNC chair

The President of the United States has a phone call to make.
He needs to call Debbie Wasserman Schultz and request that for the good of Democratic Party unity and to best Donald Trump in November, she step aside.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is headed for a tumultuous convention, one in which advocates for two very different visions of what the party should stand for will wrestle to try to shape its platform -- not to mention nominate our standard bearer. In this process, we will need to look up to the podium to see a leader who can rise above the fray to inspire confidence on both sides. Wasserman Schultz does not meet that standard.

As an individual, Wasserman Schultz has every right to support a candidate. However, the position of Democratic National Committee chair requires resolute neutrality, both in perception and in practice. Yet at major milestones in the primary race, Wasserman Schultz's actions have been anything but neutral -- to the extreme detriment of the party.

Let's start with the debate schedule. You would think that, given the Republicans' chaotic scrum of sniping candidates, the DNC chair would gleefully schedule a large number of debates to reach the widest audience with essentially free promotion of a slate of thoughtful candidates. Instead, Wasserman Schultz, without seeking broad input from her vice chairs, limited the number of debates to six. Even though three were later added, by contrast, the party had 15 primary debates in 2004 and 25 debates in 2008.

There was an obvious appetite among voters to hear from the Democratic candidates. Despite being held on the night of a crucial Major League Baseball playoff game, the first debate, on CNN, averaged 15.8 million total viewers, the sixth-biggest nonsports cable telecast in history, with the 25-54 demographic averaging 5 million viewers -- the most ever for a Democratic debate.

So why have so few debates? It's important to note that, when the campaign began, no one had assumed the race would boil down to a head-to-head matchup between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So, by putting her finger on the scale and scheduling fewer debates, Wasserman Schultz was trying to limit the exposure of anyone opposing Clinton, her favored candidate.

Then, in December, the party's data files were breached, and a staffer of the Sanders campaign accessed Clinton campaign data files. The Sanders campaign immediately terminated the staffer and reiterated to the DNC that its data vendor's firewall security was deeply flawed. Rather than bring the two campaigns together for a review of security, Wasserman Schultz immediately blocked the Sanders campaign's access to

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 22, 2016 6:39 PM

Now I understand the anger over Nevada. No wonder Bernie supporters are pissed.

How undemocratic the "Democratic" Party has become!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 22, 2016 7:07 PM

I heard an interesting live stream yesterday from the Left Forum. One of the speakers was Chris Hedges, who is always worth listening to even if I don't always agree with him.

This professor detailed the surveillances that he and other were under; and not only that he detailed the twists and turns that his lawsuit underwent as the Obama administration ("Democrat") forcefully imposed its will on the courts in favor of more surveillance and indefinite detention without trial.

Hedges had some unkind things to say about Sanders and Sanders' relationship to the Democratic Party. Hedges pointed out that Sanders had supported Bill Clinton (even after NAFTA), and after a list of other examples, described Bernie Sanders' relationship with the Democratic Party as follows (paraphrased):

Sanders is the watchdog of the Democratic Party. The arrangement that Sanders has with the Democratic Party is that they don't make a serious attempt to dislodge him from his seat, and he quashes every other independent candidate in VT.

According to Chris Hedges, who had advised Sanders to run as an Independent, Sanders thought he might really have a chance at winning running on the Democratic ticket. That the anger in Sanders' campaign is genuine, because of the undemocratic processes that are being used against him were unexpected, such as the exclusion of Independent and npp voters from the primaries.

According to Chris Hedges, if Sanders really wants to create a political movement, he has to get out from under the ass (my words) of the Democratic Party, repudiate his pledge to support the Democratic candidate (Hillary) and run under a different political party.

I agree.

The Democratic Party is there to co-opt any movement towards the left, and smother it in Party process. As long as people look to the Democratic Party to fulfill their yearnings for a better society, they'll be constantly thwarted.

I've been looking for a video of the forum, if I find one I'll post a link because there was a lot more detail there than I can remember or post.

This prolly belongs in the Sanders thread as well, so I guess I'll cross-post there.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

REAVERFAN

Monday, May 23, 2016 4:00 AM

I no longer predict a Bernie victory. I predict a Hillary victory, since all the neocons love her to pieces, and she loves war; the bloodier and more expensive the better!

1KIKI

Monday, May 23, 2016 10:32 AM

Hillary can only happen when people let themselves be duped by her appeals to tribalism (a 'd' has to win no matter how false that 'd' is), by her appeals to identity politics (I'm a woman so you can assume I know and will stand for your interests), and by appeals to vote with 'community leaders' (they endorse me so let them do your thinking for you).

I still maintain we've never had a true test of the power of the vote. What WOULD happen if people voted-in someone who didn't support the oligarchy? A coup? An assassination? Would the government actually reflect the will of the people?

I would love to think that this would be the year a people's representative would get into office. but I don't think it'll happen.

So, war with Russia is a possibility. Wonderful.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SIGNYM

Monday, May 23, 2016 7:12 PM

I didn't realize that Kagan was a Hillary advisor. *shudder*

But I HAVE said that I thought Hillary had sprung a number of surprises on Obama - Ukraine (via State Dept employees Nuland and Pyatt) being one, Libya being another, the Libya-to-Syria gun-running (via State Dept Ambassador Stevens) being another.

Yanno, although there are a lot of things I don't like about Sanders, I've written several letters to the editor criticizing Hillary and supporting Sanders. Most of my letters to the editor tend to gather a lot of "likes", believe it or not, but not these. No "likes".

But no rebuttals either.

Who are the Hillary-voters? Women, gays, Zionists, and people of color who for some unarguable reason can't see themselves voting for an old white straight guy, even tho they're shooting themselves in the head by voting for that neocon-in-drag. People who vote tribally. People who can't logically argue for their decision.

In any case, I think people need to "think the unthinkable" and decide what they're going to do when facing a choice between Trump and Hillary. Because right now, the only thing that would derail Hillary is an indictment by the FBI, which isn't going to happen (even tho it should).

I've already made my decision- I'm voting for Sanders in the primary but Trump in the general election. The only thing that Trump (as President) has any real control over is foreign policy, like trade deals, peace deals, and starting wars. I KNOW Hillary is a war-starter. Trump is an unknown. Given the choice, I'd rather vote for an uncertain future than certain disaster.

What would make me vote for Hillary? An opposing candidate who would have all of Hillary's negatives ... a war-mongering international bankster ... and then some.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.
That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

you too funny.
Russians rolling up a carpet of Japanese ARMY on the home islands.
yeah, right
of course there were no deaths at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan. The Marines were just such wussies, right? Led by their pansy officers.

1KIKI

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 8:43 AM

So, I got a google account and followed the breadcrumb trail just to read this article:

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/hillary_clinton_isnt_darth_vader_shes_
general_leia_hard_at_work_because_she_has_to_be/
Hillary Clinton isn’t Darth Vader — she’s General Leia, hard at work because she has to be
New York's Rebecca Traister reevaluates her opinion on the presumptive Democratic nominee because she was wrong

What did the author find that was so convincing that she revised her opinion about Hillary? Well - apparently that she's great one-on-one but overly rehearsed in public.

Whaa ... ?

I'm supposed to change my opinion of Hillary and forgive her for Libya, Ukraine, and Syria because she's like General Leia?
Mai got. Is this what passes for analysis? For thought? For reason and proportion? Is this the best reason to vote for her that Hillary's got going?