Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need a candidate who knows how to play hardball.
Hillary plays hardball.
Against whom?
Big Insurance? Big Pharma? Big Banks? Big Corporate America? Big Oil? She sure does like to take their PAC money... And she sure doesn't seem to be willing to stand very solidly firm against some of them when talking about the policies she does and doesn't support. She likes to tap tap tap at the problem, and not swing a gigantic wrecking ball to break them up and bring them down to size.
Playing hardball against the little GOP weasels on Capitol Hill isn't enough.
And you think Bernie is capable of this? Please. What's he done in his decades in Congress?
There absolutely MUST be a preponderance of elected leaders -- and voters who support them -- to push, push, push this agenda along. Someone whose very fibers of his/her being are built on progressive ideas must win the most important executive leadership position--the presidency. This is critical for change to happen, as it gives increasing legitimacy for these ideas. Just like the Tea Partiers voted in whackadoodle nutjobs, New Progressives have to have a very solid understanding of what their core ideas are and who will push them through. Bernie is one of these people.
Hillary is not. She'll grab on just enough, but she will NOT stand firm and strong in the face of Big Money. She has not and she never will. Because I think she doesn't actually believe in these ideas, herself. Few Democrats do, I'm afraid. Though there are heads and tails above the GOP which truly has gone off the rails.
At this point there is nothing to lose. Bernie has to stay in this race for as long as possible, hopefully even win it. Without him, Hillary has no real competition and she will revert to her Republican socio-political ideals right quick.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need a candidate who knows how to play hardball.
Hillary plays hardball.
Against whom?
Big Insurance? Big Pharma? Big Banks? Big Corporate America? Big Oil? She sure does like to take their PAC money... And she sure doesn't seem to be willing to stand very solidly firm against some of them when talking about the policies she does and doesn't support. She likes to tap tap tap at the problem, and not swing a gigantic wrecking ball to break them up and bring them down to size.
Playing hardball against the little GOP weasels on Capitol Hill isn't enough.
And you think Bernie is capable of this? Please. What's he done in his decades in Congress?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We need a candidate who knows how to play hardball.
Hillary plays hardball.
Against whom?
Big Insurance? Big Pharma? Big Banks? Big Corporate America? Big Oil? She sure does like to take their PAC money... And she sure doesn't seem to be willing to stand very solidly firm against some of them when talking about the policies she does and doesn't support. She likes to tap tap tap at the problem, and not swing a gigantic wrecking ball to break them up and bring them down to size.
Playing hardball against the little GOP weasels on Capitol Hill isn't enough.
Anonymous wrote:We need a candidate who knows how to play hardball.
Hillary plays hardball.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.
I'm the other moderate. I think you've been snookered by the anti-Clinton media messaging. She certainly has her own political warts and missteps, just like any other politician, but saddling her with lines like "incredible lack of integrity" is the sort of vague whisper attack that gets us nowhere IMHO.
I'm the PP you're responding to, and no, I don't think I've been snookered. I've been a voting american for over 30 years and have watched the various Clinton scandals unfold each time. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and the email controversy. Throughout her career she has consistently exhibited a case of apathy towards the law and ethics practices. And while there are other candidates who have had one or two missteps and mistakes, she has significantly more questionable actions and events in her career than just about any two other candidates out there.
I also think, as I mentioned, that there are still many offices and political jobs that she can hold with those issues, one's where there is more oversight of ethical misconduct, but the Presidency is job that I think is too hard to pin down and that her lack of integrity will be a huge impediment to getting the job done. I think her ghosts and her way of doing business will be a huge hindrance to performing the presidential duties and would detract from her being an effective president. She would be spending more time responding and spinning her story than she would doing the work. We need a candidate with a lot less political baggage than this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????
Dude, you shouldn't be voting for a "guy" or "girl." Never mind the "way too socialist" nonsense.
Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????
Anonymous wrote:This group think doesn't make sense. The Democrats haven't become more liberal. Obama is a corporatist who hasn't governed that much to the left of Dubya. How many from Wall Street has his administration prosecuted? How many guns has he siezed? How many Christians has he prevented com exercising their religious beliefs? How many industries has he nationalized? He's fiddled with the margins and implemented health care which penalizes those who don't purchase private insurance, an idea advanced by the Heritage Foundation and former-centrist Mitt Romney. Democrats only seem more liberal because even Reagan would now be persona non grata to so-called "rank-and-file" Republicans.
Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????
As a republican this is how I am personally. Used to be easy to get behind a candidate. Not so much anymore on either side.
Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????
Anonymous wrote:I feel the EXACT same way. I guess I can get behind Sanders, except he is just way too socialist for me. Where is my fiscally conservative, moral left guy/girl????