Hillary won more votes for President

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.

Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???

I guess it goes back to the question of how we define "progressive". It becomes circular!

Speaking of circular, Circle Jerks- now that's punk!

It's not really circular though. It's a red herring on your part (sorry, no offense, but it's true!).

brianlux

Red herring and straw men. Well fine then! I'll just go listen to some punk rock since I'm not doing so well here.

(No worries, I love ya too PJ_Soul. I just can't get on board withe notion of Hillary being progressive. Carry on!)

polaris_x

because there is no true definition of progressive doesn't mean there can't be parameters placed ... i would agree with brian that most progressives are anti corporate welfare ... and that people who at least appear to be beholden to corporations generally do not fall in the category of progressive ...

her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...

PJ_Soul

polaris_x said:

because there is no true definition of progressive doesn't mean there can't be parameters placed ... i would agree with brian that most progressives are anti corporate welfare ... and that people who at least appear to be beholden to corporations generally do not fall in the category of progressive ...

her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...

Well here are her statements when it comes to taxation. What part of this do you think makes her anti-progressive in terms of taxation?

- Restore basic fairness to our tax code. Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires and fight for measures like the Buffett Rule to ensure the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower tax rate than hardworking middle-class families. She’ll close loopholes that create a private tax system for the most fortunate, and she’ll ensure multi-million-dollar estates are paying their fair share of taxes.
- Close corporate and Wall Street tax loopholes and invest in America. Hillary will close tax loopholes like inversions that reward companies for shifting profits and jobs overseas. She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings. She will close tax loopholes that let Wall Street money managers pay lower rates than some middle-class families. And she’ll reward businesses that invest in good-paying jobs here in the United States.
- Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow. The smallest businesses, with one to five employees, spend 150 hours and $1,100 per employee on federal tax compliance. That’s more than 20 times higher than the average for far larger firms. We’ve got to fix that.
- Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face. For too many years, middle-class families have been squeezed by rising costs for everything from child care to health care to affording college. Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs and for those caring for an ill or elderly family member.
- Pay for ambitious investments in a fiscally responsible way. Hillary believes that we can afford to pay for ambitious, progressive investments in good-paying jobs, debt-free college, and other measures to strengthen growth, broaden opportunity, and reduce inequality. Hillary will use the proceeds from ensuring the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay their fair share to pay for these investments without adding to the debt.


As for voting for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act .... that was 15 years ago during a very different time. We're talking about now, what she's going to do as President.

Halifax2TheMax

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

The Perfect G.O.P. Nominee


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html?_r=2&referer=

"[The G.O.P.] already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary."

Yup!

i love how her supporters ignore these posts ...

Except she is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-entitlements... What you are seeing is an opportunity for the Democrats to further expand its playing field, and its constituency. Trump has presented an opportunity of a lifetime and the Clinton campaign is wisely expanding its state reach and electoral advantage. White married women and college educated whites are moving towards the Dems. Good for her, good for the Democrats and good for the country.

No one is avoiding anything....but don't expect a bunch of talk about an opinion piece.

This is so false it's laughable. Dems are leaving the party in record numbers.

So much for that theory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/15/is-trump-destroying-the-gop-this-new-poll-will-terrify-republicans/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.242f651b50a6

And it's got polling numbers. You like polls right?

Free

Halifax2TheMax said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

The Perfect G.O.P. Nominee


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html?_r=2&referer=

"[The G.O.P.] already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up — unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary."

Yup!

i love how her supporters ignore these posts ...

Except she is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-entitlements... What you are seeing is an opportunity for the Democrats to further expand its playing field, and its constituency. Trump has presented an opportunity of a lifetime and the Clinton campaign is wisely expanding its state reach and electoral advantage. White married women and college educated whites are moving towards the Dems. Good for her, good for the Democrats and good for the country.

No one is avoiding anything....but don't expect a bunch of talk about an opinion piece.

This is so false it's laughable. Dems are leaving the party in record numbers.

So much for that theory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/15/is-trump-destroying-the-gop-this-new-poll-will-terrify-republicans/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.242f651b50a6

And it's got polling numbers. You like polls right?

A blog. Yeah.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&biw=320&bih=460&ei=fjiyV5PrCYHZmQHFxa2wAg&q=democrats+leaving+the+party&oq=+democrats+leaving+Party+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.1.0j0i7i30k1j0j0i7i30k1.7141.20022.0.23602.54.44.0.1.1.0.417.6752.3j36j2j2j1.44.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..42.10.1386.3..41j0i22i30k1j0i67k1j33i21k1j33i160k1j30i10k1.rx1sVcuXHJ4

Free

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9140

http://www.alternet.org/story/146207/the_key_differences_between_progressive_and_liberal,_and_how_"liberal"_thinking_can_be_part_of_the_problem

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/progressivism-and-liberalism

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465671983/democrats-debate-what-is-a-progressive-and-who-wants-to-be-one

OffSheGoes35

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.

Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a degree of something...

Man, you had me convinced that you actually were a heart reader, until you said it was all in jest...

what dreams

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

brianlux

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

Considering most of that money is spent on junk that rots kids teeth and turns them into rattlesnakes on amphetamines, I wonder if maybe neither are a great idea?

dignin

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

Well, one corrupts democracy. So there's that.






Obviously I'm talking about Halloween.

brianlux

dignin said:

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

Well, one corrupts democracy. So there's that.






Obviously I'm talking about Halloween.

Death to the fascist Pumpkins!

Halifax2TheMax

brianlux said:

dignin said:

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

Well, one corrupts democracy. So there's that.






Obviously I'm talking about Halloween.

Death to the fascist Pumpkins!

Billy Corgan's a facist? Who knew?

polaris_x

PJ_Soul said:

polaris_x said:

because there is no true definition of progressive doesn't mean there can't be parameters placed ... i would agree with brian that most progressives are anti corporate welfare ... and that people who at least appear to be beholden to corporations generally do not fall in the category of progressive ...

her voting for iraq war and the patriot act also disqualifies her in my opinion ...

Well here are her statements when it comes to taxation. What part of this do you think makes her anti-progressive in terms of taxation?

- Restore basic fairness to our tax code. Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires and fight for measures like the Buffett Rule to ensure the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower tax rate than hardworking middle-class families. She’ll close loopholes that create a private tax system for the most fortunate, and she’ll ensure multi-million-dollar estates are paying their fair share of taxes.
- Close corporate and Wall Street tax loopholes and invest in America. Hillary will close tax loopholes like inversions that reward companies for shifting profits and jobs overseas. She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings. She will close tax loopholes that let Wall Street money managers pay lower rates than some middle-class families. And she’ll reward businesses that invest in good-paying jobs here in the United States.
- Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow. The smallest businesses, with one to five employees, spend 150 hours and $1,100 per employee on federal tax compliance. That’s more than 20 times higher than the average for far larger firms. We’ve got to fix that.
- Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face. For too many years, middle-class families have been squeezed by rising costs for everything from child care to health care to affording college. Hillary will offer relief from these rising costs, including tax relief for Americans facing excessive out-of-pocket health care costs and for those caring for an ill or elderly family member.
- Pay for ambitious investments in a fiscally responsible way. Hillary believes that we can afford to pay for ambitious, progressive investments in good-paying jobs, debt-free college, and other measures to strengthen growth, broaden opportunity, and reduce inequality. Hillary will use the proceeds from ensuring the wealthiest and the largest corporations pay their fair share to pay for these investments without adding to the debt.


As for voting for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act .... that was 15 years ago during a very different time. We're talking about now, what she's going to do as President.

i'd say her policy platform on taxes is fairly progressive ... it will be hard for her to get that through unless Dems control the house ... also, you have to factor in that she doesn't have the most integrity on issues ... and that her untrustworthy status is not a fabrication ... so, you really can't go by what she says ...

on war - her record speaks for itself ... not hard to look that up ...

and here's an article from naomi klein, whom I consider a progressive ... https://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

Halifax2TheMax

^^^^^ Wow actual policy discussion? Ever wonder why Hilary's republican senate colleagues haven't been bashing her?

dignin

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

Well, one corrupts democracy. So there's that.






Obviously I'm talking about Halloween.

Death to the fascist Pumpkins!

Billy Corgan's a facist? Who knew?

Well, he's bananas....does that count?

Free

what dreams said:

I heard a really interesting perspective in a C-SPAN interview about money in politics (will go back to name and fact check from a week or so ago). She said, "Americans spend 7 billion dollars every year on Halloween. Why would we think it's a bad thing to spend that much electing our president?"

If that's how much is spent on Halloween, you gotta wonder how many times over is spent on commercialized Christmas.

Boxes&Books

Do you believe Clinton is Honest?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/16/heres-a-top-democratic-senate-candidates-painful-response-when-asked-whether-hillary-clinton-is-honest/?tid=sm_tw

Free

tonifig8 said:

Do you believe Clinton is Honest?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/16/heres-a-top-democratic-senate-candidates-painful-response-when-asked-whether-hillary-clinton-is-honest/?tid=sm_tw

That is a redundant question!

Godfather.

I just read an article that Hillary is having health issues and Biden had to hold her up, this whole deal has to be taking a toll on her both mentally and physically and at her age that is dangerous so I'm wondering if she'll even have the health to continue her campaign soon ?

Godfather.