- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm #807893
auParticipant“when your only choice is between the lesser of two evils
perhaps you are wise to choose the lesser of the two evils”
this presupposes we do only have two choices, it may seem so, but did not (hu)mans create this mess to begin with?
for me to choose evil that would need to be on a case by case basis and in this case i choose no evil but to rather figure out how to reconfigure ourselves in a less detrimental and more beneficial way for all.”Wisdom being relative, maybe its time to break down the system that gives us these Hobson’s choices year after year, cycle after cycle?” Yes! If we want a new game we should probably change the players and the rules. And yes, I have very little idea on how to do that but i’m working on it…
May 7, 2014 at 11:19 pm #807894
wakefloodParticipantI’ll give you one good place to start. How about we start the presidential debates with NO assumptions about who’s going to get the most questions or face time?
You know when this started to get really bad? I can point to a specific period. Ross Perot’s significant run made both entrenched parties mad and they both vowed to keep it between the lines that they drew. No outsiders allowed – unless you think you can make them look foolish as an object lesson.
Ever watch those things. The perceived front runners get most of the questions and opportunities for follow-up. Lots of things go unasked and unrebutted by the moderators.
It’s just short of obvious how little opportunity they give free-thinkers to make a point – especially one that requires ANY education of the audience or careful deliberation. And they’d rather have gotcha’ moments over substance any day.
The networks are complicit in this charade as they know damn well who’s going to drop the big $ on them for commercial time.
May 7, 2014 at 11:57 pm #807895
JoBParticipantMay 8, 2014 at 12:03 am #807896
JoBParticipantMay 8, 2014 at 1:29 pm #807897
wakefloodParticipantThanks for the link, JoB. I get the logic – which is essentially Obama Pt. 3. You take a perceived moderate who you can get elected and use them to execute policies to the left of their generally accepted positions. Look how well that worked out in Obama’s first term plus? And even with a mandate in his second term, he’s been exactly what we all SHOULD have known he’d be. Moderate.
If ONLY Obama – and by extension an elected Hillary would be as aggressive in policy change as Shrub was WITHOUT ANY MANDATE in the aughts. He flipped the whole gubment on its ear the minute he got appointed and they never let up.
You think any Dem would be so bold? Especially one who has a long-standing history of splitting the baby and with chits to repay from Wall St.???
Stranger things have happened but I wouldn’t bet my milk money on it.
To misquote Pete T: We will get fooled again.
May 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm #807898
wakefloodParticipantYou know what I’d love to see from any Dem in the White House? I’d love to see leadership and a willingness to call out the reality and stand by it every day.
Remember Ronnie’s fear-mongering with: “I’m from the gov’t and I’m here to help”?
Clinton chose to cloak himself in the ideology from ACROSS THE AISLE with “The era of big gov’t is over”.
How about a Dem who will stand in front of god and Faux News and proclaim “Trickle Down Economics Broke America”.
You could quote statistics for an hour straight to back it up…
May 8, 2014 at 8:42 pm #807899
JoBParticipantWe elected a moderate who did not have a record of getting bills with substance passed..
so that’s what we got…
the progressives in our party chose to step over the moderate who had a great track record of getting bills with substance passed and signed into law.
one of these things is not like the other.
May 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm #807900
wakefloodParticipantShould I assume you’re referring to Hillary vs. Barack? If yes, I’m not entirely sure of the track record of substance to which you refer. I went back and looked to check, here’s what I found:
Quote: “There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it. In fact, the page devoted to her Senate biography is a mush-mash, a laundry list of good intentions. When she talks about “sponsoring” and “introducing” and “fighting for” legislation that obviously hasn’t passed, that’s a smokescreen for failure. By introducing all that legislation that never makes it out of committee, she’s guilty of what she accuses Senator Obama of: confusing “hoping” with doing.”
That’s from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html
If that’s not what you were referring to, then I retract above comment, JoB.
May 9, 2014 at 3:41 am #807901
JoBParticipantwakeflood..
Now there’s an unbiased source…
one of the major cheerleaders for the Obama campaign
try wiki…
at least you can follow their sources
May 9, 2014 at 3:19 pm #807902
wakefloodParticipantI kinda’ assumed you’d go there. I did review the wiki and I’m trying to figure out how one would counter the description I quoted.
You got a list of admirable accomplishments that you describe? List ’em? I’m struggling to figure out what I’d list. I believe your quote was “bills of substance”?
May 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm #807903
wakefloodParticipantAnd since even Hillary and Barack said they struggled to find differences in their positions, why would you assume the outcomes would be different had Hillary won?
May 9, 2014 at 3:54 pm #807904
wakefloodParticipantI really hope we don’t end up with Jeb v. Hillary in 2016. They’re both part of the problem, not the solution.
They’re both part of the apparatchik of the two parties that got us into this cluster and they’ll both nibble around the edges of the core issues for show and to appease their respective parties but things will stay the same.
Oh sure, Hillary will push women’s causes where possible (a good thing) and Jeb will moderate the GOP hate rhetoric but that’s about it.
Which of these things is not like the other, JoB? The answer is neither. They’re both beholden to the same paymasters.
May 9, 2014 at 5:27 pm #807905
JoBParticipantwakeflood..
Darling Adriana has been around a long time and some of us have long memories that don’t include a woman who pursued anything that looks like a liberal agenda..
especially when it comes to her own sex.
and yet.. here she is.. being cited as “the” liberal source….
you would tell others to look closely at what they source..
i would tell you the same.
i personally believe that Adrianna is part of the problem you cite.. not part of the solution…
As for Hillary, do i know what would have been different if she had been in office? No.
but by the same token you don’t know that her years of experience wouldn’t have made a huge difference when it came to sitting down to the table to negotiate healthcare reform.
i am just guessing here.. but i think that the single payer option would have gotten a seat at the negotiating table if for no other reason than to create bargaining potential.
if you look at her Senate record you will find that healthcare reform was still on her agenda when she took her seat in the senate…
in fact, if you look at her record you will find that the welfare of individuals was a very big item on her senate agenda.
if you look at the content of the bills she sponsored you will find that they had substance.
that she did not have the luxury of a democratic congress to work with in implementing that agenda is not something for which you can hold her responsible.
However, Obama has had the luxury of a democratic Senate during his two terms and as best i can tell he has wasted it trying to create the appearance of common ground with a party who believes that even the appearance of common ground with this president is political suicide.
and that is one lesson we know that Hillary learned before she entered the official political fray
one of these things is not like the other Wake…
May 9, 2014 at 8:42 pm #807906
wakefloodParticipantWait a minute. You just said that you can’t know if things would have been different, yet you state emphatically, that they are different…what, people?
What is clear is that they both agree that you could throw a blanket over their positions as elected officials.
And you certainly can’t believe that Obama didn’t use the threat of a public option to get and keep insurance companies at the negotiating table. How do you think we even GOT an agreement? They didn’t have to even show up without that threat – and wouldn’t have, based on everything it took to leverage the agreement they got.
We saw Obama campaign as a progressive and he hired every Clintonite he could bring into his circle and dove straight to the middle. Who do you think was advising him to do this???
If you’re right, and Hillary is this proven “can do” politician who’ll kick ass and take names, exactly what stuff and who’s agenda will be getting done if she’s a favorite of people like Murdoch and the Wall St. cabal?? She might take stands on human rights issues but she’s not gonna’ rock the financial/econmic boat. And isn’t that at the core of our problems?
But this is all moot. I think Hillary is part of the problem, you think she’s part of the solution. So be it.
May 9, 2014 at 11:25 pm #807907
JoBParticipantSomeone said something recently that resonated with me..
i can’t remember the exact wording so i will have to paraphrase it..
some presidents have agendas
others have preferences
that is the line that i saw dividing the last two democratic presidential hopefuls..
whether you agree with her agenda or not..
you have to agree that Hillary has one
and to be clear we don’t have a clue exactly what that agenda is because regardless of the role she may have played as a personal advisor to President Bill Clinton, she was not president.
When you speak of the Clinton people, you speak of Bill Clinton’s people.
While it is possible that there would be overlap between the advisors that Hillary would choose in a Presidency.. it is erroneous to believe that she is simply an extension of Bill.
And.. No..
i do not believe that the financial/economic boat is the core of our problem.
I believe they are the inevitable result of the larger human rights issues.
we won’t solve the one until we begin to address the other.
May 9, 2014 at 11:31 pm #807908
JoBParticipantwake..
btw.. there is a difference between using the threat of single payer to leverage people to a table that was already set..
and actually giving them a seat to leverage negotiating the outcome.
May 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm #807909
JoBParticipanti want to say one more thing before i terminate my participation in this discussion
i did not say that Hillary was the solution.
i believe i labeled our choices as the lesser of evils.
there are many points upon which Ms Clinton and i disagree.. not the least of which is the subject of war…
but she has earned my respect in ways that no other current candidate has… and not just because she is a woman.
Even if Elizabeth Warren threw her hat into the ring..
i would still vote for Hillary because she has the kind of political experience that creates depth and because she has earned the kind of respect on the world stage that would make her the better choice for President.
You tell me where we find a better candidate and I will be willing to listen..
but until then, Hillary bashing is old news
and i for one am tired of catering to it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.