Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Presidential Candidates
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 273681" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Sammie,</p><p> </p><p>Let me say this about my view of Hillary and I'll move on. </p><p> </p><p>First off, Republicans really want her to win the nomination. That's right, they want her to win. Several reasons why but the 1st and foremost is in polling data for a national general election she scores the worse but she also has a track record that is easily manipulated and thrown around in the general election for strategic advantage. Her negatives in the eyes of the general public seem to overshadow her positives in polling data. Hillary also ignites the core shocktroopers of the Republican party and it will take her as a candidate IMO to really mobilize especially the Christian right around a Mitt Romney(Mormon who fundamentalist Christians believe is a cult) or Rudy (he's Catholic but far worse he's pro choice) who IMO either one is likely to win the nomination. Hillary is seen by this group as Satan incarnate so the repub. core will make a deal with Beelzabub to keep Satan herself from accending the thrown of David. LOL!</p><p> </p><p>Contary to the straw man myth of the republican choirboys that dominate opinion sources, Hillary is more a moderate that a hardline lefty as some would like to paint her and her Senate voting record seems to support some of that thinking. Sure, she's gone out on the edge a time or 2 but she has too in order to keep the hardcore left of her party marching to the party tune. Reagan would speak on Pro-Life day in the cold of Jan. but did he ever really push hard legislation to do anything about it? Did he ever really venture out on that edge with legislative proposals to end the process once and for all? No, not really. Sure, I'm give him he was realist and the chances of being successful were slim and none but if you are a principled person, it's when the chances are slim and none that you hold even tighter those core values. As they like to say, What would Jesus Do? Don't kid yourself, Jesus was hardcore!</p><p> </p><p>On the flipside, that same left hardcore group is flopping in the wind because of Hillary's past votes on the war and her connection to the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) which in reality is a Neo-Con lite if you will. The DLC was all behind Bill's attempt in 1998' to revamp and even some privatizing of the federal entitlement programs including Social Security (even Al gore wanted some SS privatizing) but instead of using their position of being in the catbird seat because of all of Bill's shortcomings coming to light and using it like a stick to steer the effort, they went for political overthrow. We got impeachment instead and when the repub's tired the same thing early in Bush's term to revamp SS, the democrats blocked it as payback for not moving with them in 98' when they had the chance. The republicans had so little principle as their core values, that the desire for pure power overshadowed what little princple they thought they had. </p><p> </p><p>Hillarycare in 1993'. You know what I find so interesting about that proposal? One of the biggest supporters of that effort was none other than General Motors and they weren't alone either. A number of big business interests were in support of that effort. I would be too if all of a sudden I could eliminate in the signing of a single law that would allow me to take billions of dollars I'm spending on employee and retiree healthcare and place that immediately to the bottomline profit of my company. Hillary a collectivist lefty? Not hardly, sounds more like a Mussolini Fascist to me! But what about her plan today? It amazes me that so many business leaders like Warren Buffet are backing Hillary with various efforts. <a href="http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/27/71845.shtml" target="_blank">http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/27/71845.shtml</a> If Hill was so marxist and had a record of such, I doubt Warren and friends would be backing her on any level unless it's your contention that Warren is marxist too. As a nearly 10 year stockholder in Berkshire Hathaway and having read a lot about Warren and especially his annual Q&A's that he and Charlie Munger have with Shareholders, Warren is not a marxist by any stretch. </p><p> </p><p>Again, some of the hype in IMO is a straw dog because some of Hillary's ideas on healthcare came as a result of a series of discussions Hillary had with Newt Gingrich on the issue of Healthcare back in 2005'. Don't believe me? OK, would you believe Newt himself? Here you go. <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4790698" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4790698</a> Hillary proposing healthcare ideas straight from the chief saint of the American right wing and Repblican Hall of Fame!</p><p> </p><p>As I said, Hillary has some real personal issues as it relates to dealing with people and some character flaw issues but as I said, this is a norm not an anamoly when you get to this level of power and dealing with people who get to that level. Some just hide it better than others. Hillary at the end of the day when it come to domestic and foreign policy won't differ that much from her husband. You can say what you want about Bill but other than his brain going between his legs at times, he is a pretty smart guy. Didn't say I agreed with the man but he is smart. </p><p> </p><p>Case in point? Reaganomics. Clinton came into office with the democrats howling for a return to the "good ole' days" but Clinton understood one important fact. Economic cycle. Clinton understood that Reagan had changed some things in regards to economic policy (1982' TEFRA Act and the 1986' Tax Code that completely replaced the 1954' Tax Code)and he also understood that Reagan during his tenure took the lion's share of the beating as the fallout from economic changes take place early in the cycle, generally speaking. As the Bush 1 years concluded, it didn't take much of a rocket scientist to understand that a nice extended boom cycle would happen if one left well enough alone and Bill did. He also understood the importance of this new concept of international economic growth (a key point of the DLC by the way as well as the Neo-Cons) so he went to work on such things as NAFTA and the WTO and the rest is history as they say. Clinton was smart enough to throw the hardliners of his party a bone from time to time but for the most part Reaganomics continued forth. Hillary was right there the whole time and I contend she will do many of the same things. Now her bones to the hardliners may be a bit less palitible to you repubs. but in the nuts and bolts of policy, it won't mean much at all IMO. </p><p> </p><p>Hillary much to the displeasure of the anti-war left even voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment leaving the door open to hit Iran if need be because in the end Hillary really is an Empiress looking for an empire to lead and the Neo-Cons have built her one made to special order. I almost want her to win just to sit back and watch her unleash the very things you guys defended of Bush's actions on your iconic leaders. Makes me just giddy thinking about it! Something Ron Paul once said comes to mind,</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 18px">BLOWBACK! <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></span></p><p> </p><p>Another reason IMO Hillary is demonized by the republican neo-cons is that they won't you to actually look at her record and then consider what she is proposing because if the repubs win the election and the republs continue their reindeer games, you'll jut your head back and say:</p><p> </p><p>"Wait a minute, how is this any different than what Hillary was proposing?" And then the gig is up! That is really what they fear.</p><p> </p><p>That's my take and POV of Hillary so go ahead and fear what's really not there to begin with if you wish! I wouldn't vote for her in a gazillion years as she reminds me of Nxon to be honest but I don't fear her policy anymore than I fear the policies of the republican frontrunners. To me, it's the exact same meal just served on a different plate!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 273681, member: 2189"] Sammie, Let me say this about my view of Hillary and I'll move on. First off, Republicans really want her to win the nomination. That's right, they want her to win. Several reasons why but the 1st and foremost is in polling data for a national general election she scores the worse but she also has a track record that is easily manipulated and thrown around in the general election for strategic advantage. Her negatives in the eyes of the general public seem to overshadow her positives in polling data. Hillary also ignites the core shocktroopers of the Republican party and it will take her as a candidate IMO to really mobilize especially the Christian right around a Mitt Romney(Mormon who fundamentalist Christians believe is a cult) or Rudy (he's Catholic but far worse he's pro choice) who IMO either one is likely to win the nomination. Hillary is seen by this group as Satan incarnate so the repub. core will make a deal with Beelzabub to keep Satan herself from accending the thrown of David. LOL! Contary to the straw man myth of the republican choirboys that dominate opinion sources, Hillary is more a moderate that a hardline lefty as some would like to paint her and her Senate voting record seems to support some of that thinking. Sure, she's gone out on the edge a time or 2 but she has too in order to keep the hardcore left of her party marching to the party tune. Reagan would speak on Pro-Life day in the cold of Jan. but did he ever really push hard legislation to do anything about it? Did he ever really venture out on that edge with legislative proposals to end the process once and for all? No, not really. Sure, I'm give him he was realist and the chances of being successful were slim and none but if you are a principled person, it's when the chances are slim and none that you hold even tighter those core values. As they like to say, What would Jesus Do? Don't kid yourself, Jesus was hardcore! On the flipside, that same left hardcore group is flopping in the wind because of Hillary's past votes on the war and her connection to the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) which in reality is a Neo-Con lite if you will. The DLC was all behind Bill's attempt in 1998' to revamp and even some privatizing of the federal entitlement programs including Social Security (even Al gore wanted some SS privatizing) but instead of using their position of being in the catbird seat because of all of Bill's shortcomings coming to light and using it like a stick to steer the effort, they went for political overthrow. We got impeachment instead and when the repub's tired the same thing early in Bush's term to revamp SS, the democrats blocked it as payback for not moving with them in 98' when they had the chance. The republicans had so little principle as their core values, that the desire for pure power overshadowed what little princple they thought they had. Hillarycare in 1993'. You know what I find so interesting about that proposal? One of the biggest supporters of that effort was none other than General Motors and they weren't alone either. A number of big business interests were in support of that effort. I would be too if all of a sudden I could eliminate in the signing of a single law that would allow me to take billions of dollars I'm spending on employee and retiree healthcare and place that immediately to the bottomline profit of my company. Hillary a collectivist lefty? Not hardly, sounds more like a Mussolini Fascist to me! But what about her plan today? It amazes me that so many business leaders like Warren Buffet are backing Hillary with various efforts. [URL]http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/27/71845.shtml[/URL] If Hill was so marxist and had a record of such, I doubt Warren and friends would be backing her on any level unless it's your contention that Warren is marxist too. As a nearly 10 year stockholder in Berkshire Hathaway and having read a lot about Warren and especially his annual Q&A's that he and Charlie Munger have with Shareholders, Warren is not a marxist by any stretch. Again, some of the hype in IMO is a straw dog because some of Hillary's ideas on healthcare came as a result of a series of discussions Hillary had with Newt Gingrich on the issue of Healthcare back in 2005'. Don't believe me? OK, would you believe Newt himself? Here you go. [URL]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4790698[/URL] Hillary proposing healthcare ideas straight from the chief saint of the American right wing and Repblican Hall of Fame! As I said, Hillary has some real personal issues as it relates to dealing with people and some character flaw issues but as I said, this is a norm not an anamoly when you get to this level of power and dealing with people who get to that level. Some just hide it better than others. Hillary at the end of the day when it come to domestic and foreign policy won't differ that much from her husband. You can say what you want about Bill but other than his brain going between his legs at times, he is a pretty smart guy. Didn't say I agreed with the man but he is smart. Case in point? Reaganomics. Clinton came into office with the democrats howling for a return to the "good ole' days" but Clinton understood one important fact. Economic cycle. Clinton understood that Reagan had changed some things in regards to economic policy (1982' TEFRA Act and the 1986' Tax Code that completely replaced the 1954' Tax Code)and he also understood that Reagan during his tenure took the lion's share of the beating as the fallout from economic changes take place early in the cycle, generally speaking. As the Bush 1 years concluded, it didn't take much of a rocket scientist to understand that a nice extended boom cycle would happen if one left well enough alone and Bill did. He also understood the importance of this new concept of international economic growth (a key point of the DLC by the way as well as the Neo-Cons) so he went to work on such things as NAFTA and the WTO and the rest is history as they say. Clinton was smart enough to throw the hardliners of his party a bone from time to time but for the most part Reaganomics continued forth. Hillary was right there the whole time and I contend she will do many of the same things. Now her bones to the hardliners may be a bit less palitible to you repubs. but in the nuts and bolts of policy, it won't mean much at all IMO. Hillary much to the displeasure of the anti-war left even voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment leaving the door open to hit Iran if need be because in the end Hillary really is an Empiress looking for an empire to lead and the Neo-Cons have built her one made to special order. I almost want her to win just to sit back and watch her unleash the very things you guys defended of Bush's actions on your iconic leaders. Makes me just giddy thinking about it! Something Ron Paul once said comes to mind, [SIZE=5]BLOWBACK! :wink2:[/SIZE] Another reason IMO Hillary is demonized by the republican neo-cons is that they won't you to actually look at her record and then consider what she is proposing because if the repubs win the election and the republs continue their reindeer games, you'll jut your head back and say: "Wait a minute, how is this any different than what Hillary was proposing?" And then the gig is up! That is really what they fear. That's my take and POV of Hillary so go ahead and fear what's really not there to begin with if you wish! I wouldn't vote for her in a gazillion years as she reminds me of Nxon to be honest but I don't fear her policy anymore than I fear the policies of the republican frontrunners. To me, it's the exact same meal just served on a different plate! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Presidential Candidates
Top