Any color, as long as it is black

Republicans may have too many choices. But the Democrats have none. They have already settled on one candidate. They can change the packaging and slogans, but it is always the same Hillary. They have to double down because they have nothing else. Henry Ford had a similar Model T strategy. When asked about variety, he said that customers could have any model as long as it was the Model T and any color, as long as it was black. Hillary is a lot like the Model T. It was a great vehicle in its day but its day is long past. Actually comparing Hillary to the Model T is not fair to Ford.

Democrats like to say that Republicans march in lockstep. It sure is not lockstep when you have so many candidates. On the other hand, Democrats fixed on a candidate at least six years ago. Lots of things changed since 2009/10. What has not changed is the Democratic candidate. Now that is what we call lockstep.

What are the chances that Democrats have nobody better than Hillary or even nobody seriously to challenge her? Have they developed nothing new since 1992 that they have to rely on someone who has been in the bubble since then? Many voters were not even born when Hillary moved into the White House. Young Republican candidates like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker were almost too young to vote in that election. Might it not be better to look for someone newer?

Posted by Christine & John at August 10, 2015 1:34 AM
Comments
Comment #397259

15,000 people recently showed up to hear Bernie Sanders in Seattle, and tonight 28,000 people showed up for him in Portland OR.

HRC drew a crowd of 5,500 at her official announcement to run.

Cruz drew 11,000 for his announcement, but it was mandatory attendance for students at Liberty University.

Trump PAID people to show up for his announcement.

No GOP candidate is drawing crowds anywhere close to Sanders. The closest has been Trump, who drew 4,200 to a rally in Phoenix. Note the difference: Trump for 4,200. Sanders for 28,000.
(Trump claims 15,000 showed, but news sources report otherwise. Of course, we all know Trump would never exaggerate, so maybe it was 15,000).

No one on either side of the race has so many new ideas that actually address what most Americans care about. It is a typical liberal campaign, so unlike the conservative ones we are used to seeing. Sanders is polite, yet forceful. He refuses to engage in name calling or try to build himself up by tearing down HRC. He sticks to the issues.

No matter how you cut it, 28,000 showing for a political rally in August is a remarkable showing.

Posted by: phx8 at August 10, 2015 1:04 AM
Comment #397260

phx8

So, you think there is a strong chance that Bernie will win the nomination? Maybe I am too cynical and I could be wrong, but Bernie is just a side show. The Clintons allow the diversion to create the idea that there is a real competition.

IMO - Hillary herself is a weak candidate. Democrats would not choose her today, but she was chosen for them years ago and now that it what they have got. Hillary can implode, i.e. she could get caught up in lies or scandals, but she cannot be defeated for the nomination by anyone but herself. If she implodes, Joe Biden will step up to take up the mantle.

Maybe you can encourage Bernie to run as a third party. If we get Trump to do the same, we will get Bernie, Trump, Hillary and whoever gets the Republican nomination and everybody can have a choice.

BTW - My speculation is that Hillary folks will take Bernie down with some variation of the race issue. I am not sure what it will be and it doesn’t really matter, since such things can be easily manufactured.

Posted by: C&J at August 10, 2015 7:37 AM
Comment #397264

C&J,
While I still do not believe Sanders will defeat HRC, a turnout of 28,000 is simply extraordinary. Unlike Trump, Sanders has made it abundantly clear that he will not run a third party campaign. Sanders v Trump would be a contest for the ages, but extremely unlikely. Still, a guy can dream!

HRC will beat Sanders for two reasons: 1) Money, and 2), uh, er, I forget the second one.

Actually, HRC can do it on issues. Here are a few of Sander’s positions (according to Forbes Magazine):

Stop corporations from using offshore tax havens to avoid U.S. taxes

Establish a Robin Hood tax on Wall Street speculators. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Creating a speculation fee of just 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the job-creating productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $352 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies.

Establish a Progressive Estate Tax. If we established a progressive estate tax on inherited wealth of more than $3.5 million, we could raise more than $300 billion over 10 years. [I] introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act that would reduce the deficit in a fair way while ensuring that 99.7 percent of Americans would never pay a penny in estate taxes.

Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work.

Repeal all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax breaks for the top two percent.

Eliminate the cap on taxable income that goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.

Establish a currency manipulation fee on China and other countries.

Reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon, which now consumes over half of our discretionary budget.

Require Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry.

Most of these proposals- and Sanders goes into them in quite a bit of detail- can be easily co-opted by HRC. Most of these ideas are very popular and really just common sense.

Posted by: phx8 at August 10, 2015 11:18 AM
Comment #397272

phx8

It is easy to make proposals and promises. Turning them into policies and laws is hard. Beyond that, even if you can make them policies, popular sounding ideas often do not work out as anticipated when dropped into a complex environment. This is the fundamental problem with socialism. It reads better than it lives.

Let me just knock off the easiest - capital gains. You would have to index it for inflation. For example, if you invested $1000 in 1980 and sold it today for $2,896.09, all you managed to do was to break even. If you sold it for only $2000, you have taken a capital loss (in real terms). A lot of capital gains is not really a profit.

How about that fee on China. We would all like to do that. Do you think the Chinese would just pay up or might they make some counter move?

Dealing with offshore “havens.” America already has the world’s highest corporate taxes. That is why they sometimes do not bring funds here. We also tax worldwide income. Few countries do that. That means that U.S.-based firms pay higher taxes than a foreign competitor. Do we really want to further advantage those German, Japanese or Chinese firms?

Anyway, Bernie can talk good. Like all socialists, he appeals to the young and inexperienced.

We agree that Hillary will knock him out. It is not ONLY money, however. Hillary has that impressive political machine. She will refrain from swatting Bernie as long as he draws crowds but no real power. Right now, Bernie is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing.

Posted by: C&J at August 10, 2015 8:33 PM
Comment #397275

Today Sanders drew a crowd of 27,000 in L.A. Once again, that is simply extraordinary. He receives very little coverage in the media other than mentions of large crowds, yet here it is, only August, six months before the first caucus & primary, and he draws 27,000. GOP candidates draw in the hundreds. The JV GOP debate was held in front of an empty auditorium. The largest crowd to date (not counting the mandatory attendance at an assembly where Cruz announced) has been for Trump, and that crowd was estimated at 4,500.

Sanders is an experienced legislator. He knows how to get deals done in the Senate and get both sides to cooperate.

Sanders is putting out an agenda that directly addresses what most people actually care about. While the GOP is talking about cutting corporate taxes- and seriously, who gets excited about helping out corporations with tax cuts unless that person is a politician looking for campaign contributions- Sanders is talking about universal health care, affordable college, raising the payroll cap on Social Security, raising the minimum wage to $15, overturning Citizens United, ending the War on Drugs, rebuilding infrastructure, and raising taxes on the 1%. Most of his proposals are specific and practical and the costs and savings are taken into account.

Posted by: phx8 at August 11, 2015 12:38 AM
Comment #397276

The very reason some Democrats look forward to hearing and watching what HRC does in this primary process is the same reason she is feared by conservatives and Republicans. We are not focused on what she has done, although her accomplishments are evident, Senator and Secretary of State. It’s kind of amusing to read a blog post that doesn’t think much of those accomplishments by someone who has not held a Senate seat or been Secretary of State, cheap shot from the peanut gallery.

Those Democrats and Independents that look to HRC are excited about what she can do, not what she has done. This is the same reason conservatives and Republicans hold her in great fear. They fear what she can do and we know that.

She announced her New College Compact yesterday. This is exactly how she might win the nomination. By supporting popular ideas expressed by other candidates (Sanders) with real policy suggestions and initiatives. We understand the fear from conservatives and Republicans, she is going to try to do what she can to help America, you could embrace that but we know that just isn’t something you can do. We shall.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 10:04 AM
Comment #397278

Speak,
” This is exactly how she might win the nomination. By supporting popular ideas expressed by other candidates (Sanders) with real policy suggestions and initiatives.”

That’s where I figure this thing is going. But there’s no question Sanders is lighting a fire. It is hard to imagine Sanders ever defeating her, but he is gracious enough that he can be counted on to wholeheartedly support HRC.

This is quite a contrast with the GOP and conservatives. While Democratic candidates draw huge crowds and conduct a positive campaign that concentrates on policy and is free of name-calling, conservatives are doing exactly the opposite. Crowds are small, and while the television audience for the main debate was huge, the auditorium for the JV debate was virtually empty. No one will take the time to show up in person for these conservative candidates; in other words, there is no enthusiasm. The campaign is already extremely negative, the double-digit frontrunner literally has no policies, and the rest of an exceptionally weak field is spending most of its time name-calling and backpedaling. As fast as they present extreme positions to appease their far right base, they have to dodge like crazy to explain the horror nature of their policies to the rest of the country.

Posted by: phx8 at August 11, 2015 11:22 AM
Comment #397279

HRC’s number one strong point is she is adept at lying. Too many people all over the US agree with me.

Her number two strong point is lying when she does not have to. Again people all over this land agree with me.

Her number three strong point is, she does not have one.

Posted by: tom humes at August 11, 2015 11:32 AM
Comment #397280

Clinton’s job is really easy. All she has to do is say 4 more years of the same and people will love her. Obama’s favorability and approval are now in the high 40s and will cross the 50% mark before the election.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 11, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #397281

phx8, I have been very impressed with Sanders ability to continue on a national campaign for the Democratic nomination. I knew he would be well received but had no idea of the crowds he was going to draw. He is not only gracious but also a tenacious advocate for middle class values. I expect that he will be a solidifying player for the Democrat Party when it comes to convention time. I expect his applause to be as great as the eventual candidate which I don’t expect will be him and have every bit of confidence that it will be Hillary Clinton but it’s a long way to August of 2016 and much more will happen.

WP, I’m not so sure it will be that easy. I think you are correct, President Obama’s numbers will continue to rise, but the electorate does seem to really need something new to build upon his successes. We shall see if she can do that, just as someone who wants the position should attempt to do.

th, you are liar. See how easy it is to make unfounded declarations? Thanks for polling everyone but I don’t believe you.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 12:07 PM
Comment #397282

Tom H.

HRC’s strong point is that she is pro-abortion, anti 2nd Amendment, now supports gay-marriage, and pretends to support the poor and the redistribution of wealth.
Toss those in with some faux cries of racism behind every corner and some BS about a ‘War on Women,’ and that’s all it really takes to be a dem candidate today.

She could chant ‘death to America’ while burning the US flag and her lockstep followers would still vote for her.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2015 12:39 PM
Comment #397283

kct, you may be pro-abortion, as disgusting as that seems, but HRC is pro-choice. Let’s not try to put your vile words into someone’s mouth. You too seem to be able to make any wild accusation without foundation, but then I have demonstrated how simple that can be. I don’t consider you a credible source for evaluating a “dem candidate” or much else for that matter.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 12:49 PM
Comment #397284

Sorry speaks, but them’s the facts.
HRC supports abortion. HRC supports strict gun control. HRC changed her position to now support gay-marriage. HRC is a multi-millionaire but hypocritically claims to care for the poor. HRC supports higher taxes. HRC has pushed the false memes of rampant institutional racism and that personal responsibility equals some War on Women.

Of course, if I am wrong on any of that, you are more than welcome to point out how so.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2015 1:09 PM
Comment #397285

kctim,

Someone who is pro-abortion is someone who supports government mandated abortion. Someone who is pro-choice supports leaving the decision in the hands of the pregnant woman and her physician. Don’t conflate the two positions. One is liberal and the other illiberal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 11, 2015 1:44 PM
Comment #397287

kct, well lets look at your contentions:

“HRC supports abortion”, wrong HRC supports the woman’s choice in making the decision about an abortion.

“HRC supports strict gun control” I disagree with the word control and very much support her position for strong legislation when it comes to the attainment and ownership of guns.

“HRC changed her position to now support gay-marriage” and I applaud this stance as many people do today, those who oppose that are in the minority.

“HRC is a multi-millionaire but hypocritically claims to care for the poor”, prove it, we know you can’t.

“HRC supports higher taxes” only on those that can afford to pay more taxes. I myself would be part of that group that might pay higher taxes but I have always maintained that paying taxes is an honor and privilege.

“HRC has pushed the false memes of rampant institutional racism and that personal responsibility equals some War on Women” false only to you and your fellow believers in propaganda the rest of us recognize the inequalities that she points to.

Your lack of rudimentary skills necessary for thoughtful discussion are only exceeded by your inability to use critical thinking applied to the contentious remarks that you make.

I have not tried to be contentious or adversarial in these my first comments in days on this blog but yet here you are again, stalking me like I am some kind of prey. You need a life maybe? How about just try telling us what you support without tearing down another persons thoughts?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #397289

Warren

Someone who supports a topic, is ‘pro’ whatever topic is being discussed.
If the abortion procedure is being discussed, then support of that procedure is the ‘pro’ position. The fact that it sounds callous and doesn’t support your position, has no bearing on that.
If choice is being discussed, then support of choice is the ‘pro’ position. If one is indiscriminate in their application of choice, one is not ‘pro’ choice.

HRC’s positions prove she supports the abortion procedure, she is ‘pro’ abortion. Her positions prove she supports choice on some things, but not on msot things, she is not ‘pro’ choice.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #397290

Speak wrote; “…I have always maintained that paying taxes is an honor and privilege.”

Thanks for the levity Speak. Perhaps you honor April 15th with celebrations in your home as some do with the 4th of July and Christmas.

Both the 4th and Christmas represent freedom. How do you characterize April 15th?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 2:48 PM
Comment #397291

By the way, is Speak “pro-tax” or “pro-choice”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 2:52 PM
Comment #397292

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion of blacks and minorities. She was a promoter of Eugenics (: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed).

Even Planned Parenthood had to drop it’s denials that it’s founder practiced eugenics by promoting birth control and the abortion of black babies. It simply claims that Margaret Sangers beliefs were from another historical time. Sanger was in complete agreement with Hitler and creating a master race. She did not believe blacks to be part of that race. She promoted sterilization of blacks and the aborting of black babies, in order to deplete their numbers. Sanger was a member of the KKK, as were many progressive Democrats of her day.

Hillary Clinton compared Margaret Sanger to one of the founding fathers. She completely supported Sanger and Planned Parenthood. By the left’s own belief, Hillary is guilty by association. Therefore Hillary Clinton IS “Pro-Abortion”, an not pro-choice. Sanger was a “progressive” of the early 1900’s and by Hillary’s own admission during the 2008 You Tube debates she claimed she was a Progressive of the same mentality as those of the early 1900’s.

Here is a few facts about Margaret Sanger:

http://www.reformedperspective.ca/component/content/article/55-magcontent/christian-living/252-margaret-sanger

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 2:57 PM
Comment #397294

speaks

HRC “fights” for abortion to remain legal and for easy access to have one. She supports the procedure being used when it wants to be used.

It doesn’t matter is you support her position on the 2nd Amendment or not, the fact is that she supports strong legislation that infringes on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. That makes her anti 2nd Amendment.

“HRC is a multi-millionaire but hypocritically claims to care for the poor”, prove it, we know you can’t.

- In 2010, then-Secretary Clinton’s financial disclosures revealed a net worth totaling between roughly $10 and $50 million. In 2012, the last year for which she disclosed finances, Clinton’s net worth was estimated to be between $5 million and $25 million.

Despite being “dead broke” in 2000, her financial disclosures reveal she is now a multi-millionaire.

“I myself would be part of that group that might pay higher taxes but I have always maintained that paying taxes is an honor and privilege.”

That does not change the fact that she supports the redistribution of wealth.

“false only to you and your fellow believers in propaganda the rest of us recognize the inequalities that she points to.”

So what exactly are those inequalities that are due to institutional racism, Speaks?

“I have not tried to be contentious or adversarial in these my first comments in days on this blog”

There was/is no need for you to be either, we just have differing opinions.

“but yet here you are again, stalking me like I am some kind of prey.”

Dude, YOU replied to my post to Tom H.

My thoughts? Hillary is a 90s hack with nothing new to offer, but is still embraced by the left because she is a woman who promotes the continuation and growing of the ‘give me’ culture that plagues the nation.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #397295

RF, it was not an attempt at levity but an honest description of what I believe is the obligation of every citizen of our great country. That there a few conservatives that rail against taxes is disgusting, especially since they are in a position to relish in this country’s bounty more so than others. They have no understanding of the commitment it takes for this country to thrive and help it’s citizens to thrive. April 15th is not much different to me then any other day since I pay my taxes well in advance of that date, usually. My brother, who is a CPA, thinks April 16th is great day.

kct, as evidenced by your prior statements regarding abortion you are completely wrong. I can’t explain that anymore than others and myself have tried to.

Don’t really care about your sacred 2nd Amendment sophism but I would like to see more stringent gun legislation and support HRC.

Well you and I know she has money now how about you prove that she is hypocritical in her claims to care for poor. Now remember try to use real examples and not that kct made up nonsense.

Redistribution of wealth? You’ve been listening to too much of that altar of strange sexual desires nonsense.

The inequalities she speaks of are easy enough to discern but my guess is you have never spent any time digesting that so again no credibility.

We don’t just have differing opinions, you attack anyone that disagrees with you but you think you do it in such a way that makes you out to be this political god send that we should all pay some attention to. I don’t.

What are you a fourteen year old? You address others on this blog as “dude” please lose the playground speak. Step away from the keyboard put the cheetos down and go outside for awhile and play.

I addressed the use of pro-abortion as a stance that HRC had as incorrect and corrected that. You then chose to attack my comment. To bad you don’t understand how this works.

HRC is a woman of the 21st century, I expect that you and many others will be finding out why very soon.

Now go away and leave me alone. I know that is too much to ask of a juvenile commenter that doesn’t realize when his yipping and yapping are annoying and silly.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #397296

Phx8

Great. Get excited about Bernie. Maybe he will win. It is just a low probability event.

Crowd size is a deceptive measure.

But I am content if Trump & Bernie mount third party challenges. They can draw off the extreme voters and we can decide the election in the middle.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #397297

The only thing Hillary has in common with the 21st century is that it will be the century in which she has to answer to God for her pro-abortion stand.

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 4:11 PM
Comment #397298

Speaks

“I addressed the use of pro-abortion as a stance that HRC had as incorrect and corrected that.”

No, you gave your opinion on why you disagree with that terminology.

“You then chose to attack my comment.”

Na. I simply pointed out why you were wrong. That’s how this works.

“HRC is a woman of the 21st century, I expect that you and many others will be finding out why very soon.”

Then why is her campaign so similar to her husband’s in the 90s?

“Now go away and leave me alone. I know that is too much to ask of a juvenile commenter that doesn’t realize when his yipping and yapping are annoying and silly.”

Dude, lighten up some. It’s not my fault that you find facts annoying, or that you are unable to defend your positions with anything other than talking-points.

If your not having fun on here, you’re doing something wrong.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #397299

Since you have addressed me as “dude” again I shall now address you as fool.

Fool, oh I am having fun here, it’s just that you aren’t part of that. Mostly because you use playground speak and playground arguments in support of your playground positions. You haven’t stated a fact yet here today, not one. I don’t need to defend my positions unless there is a credible refutation. I don’t consider yours credible but I do enjoy pointing out your misconceptions.

Now carry on with your “Dude” rants. You don’t realize how immature that makes you sound, do you?

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #397301

Dude, I have no problem with Dude. In fact, I got all duded up to talk with you dudes and now I find that Dude is a playground dud.

Posted by: Dude at August 11, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #397304

Looks like the Trump vs. Fox war is over.

I expect we will see some avenue to develop for the third party run to be mollified if not completely left out of any discussion. But that still doesn’t mean that Trump will back away, he will just be given some leeway instead of being asked that same question again. Even though it would be a Democrat party dream to see him pull 30 to 40% of support away from the Republican nominee, I can’t fathom that happening for some reason. It is also unfathomable to think that he could get the Republican nomination but that is what he said he wanted all along.

Sanders as an Independent has shown his support for the Democrats, even as he campaigns for President. I am even less certain that he would run as an Independent for the office of President. But you never know, strange bedfellows and politics have been around a long time.

As I have said before, I am looking forward to this primary process for both parties.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment #397305

Speak; “RF, it was not an attempt at levity but an honest description of what I believe is the obligation of every citizen of our great country.”

Obligation? What happened to “honor and privilege”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #397306

RF, you may not understand this but having served your country you should. Serving my country was an obligation that I was privileged with and honored to accomplish. Paying taxes is an obligation that I am privileged enough to be able to do and I am honored to do that.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #397308

Good answer Speak. Why don’t we grant this “honor and privilege” to all our citizens…everyone should pay some tax.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #397309

RF, agreed all that are capable should.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 11, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #397312

Blaine,

Eugenics was a widely accepted “scientific” movement in the US during Margaret Sanger’s time. She was hardly unique in her views.

It was so accepted as a valid scientific process that many states passed eugenic based marriage and sterilization laws. The fear of “inferior” stock emigrating to the US from eastern Europe was a major factor in the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was not the first proponent of the concept of a “master race.” It was US based eugenics that provided much of the “scientific” basis for Nazi programs. “The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[71] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Posted by: Rich at August 11, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #397313
The only thing Hillary has in common with the 21st century is that it will be the century in which she has to answer to God for her pro-abortion stand.

Well that still puts her a century ahead of any of the repub candidates Blaine. At least on the issues.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 11, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #397315

“Eugenics was a widely accepted “scientific” movement in the US during Margaret Sanger’s time.”

Promoted by that great racist Woodrow Wilson.

Today’s “Eugenics” is MMGW.

Times change, flim-flam doesn’t.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 6:43 PM
Comment #397317

“Promoted by that great racist Woodrow Wilson.”

Yes, along with Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, etc.

But, your point is well taken, Royal. We should be careful about broad “scientific” generalizations and political action based upon limited and incomplete data and theory. On the other hand, we should also be wary of rejection of established scientific fact simply because it doesn’t fit our political narrative.

Posted by: Rich at August 11, 2015 7:36 PM
Comment #397318

Rich, holding a science degree I completely agree that “established scientific fact” is irrefutable.

Much of “accepted” science is still based upon a theory.

I have no idea why we place much confidence upon scientific “consensus”. Other than an indication of individual preference, it has no real meaning.

Even worse is the term “settled” science. What the hell does that mean?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2015 8:03 PM
Comment #397321

It was once settled that the earth was flat.

Rich, thanks for the Wikipedia update about Eugenics, but as far as Margaret Sanger it was for the purpose of doing away with blacks. Don’t you find it a little bit curious that Hillary would place her with the founding fathers of this country; that she received the Margaret Sanger award; and that she identifies with the progressive theology of the early 1900’s? All this and we are supposed to believe Hillary is not pro-abortion? Why sure she is. Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall and hear what Hillary really thinks about blacks?

Posted by: Blaine at August 11, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #397325

Blaine

“Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall and hear what Hillary really thinks about blacks?”

In all fairness, while some of her thoughts would probably qualify to be called ‘racist’ under today’s politically perverted definition of ‘racism,’ I honestly don’t believe she has a racist bone in her body. She is more of a ‘classist’ kind of person, IMO. There is her and us little people.

But, I like Hillary, so I could just be being biased.

Posted by: kctim at August 12, 2015 10:19 AM
Comment #397328

“HRC is a woman of the 21st century, I expect that you and many others will be finding out why very soon.”

Sounds a little prophetic and rightfully so. Maybe she will be joining those women in stripped clothes.

I wonder if her sentence will be anything like other traitors.

Now to all you Hillary supporters, you need to read the latest memo. Her coronation will be delayed and probably will not occur at all. It was a figment of her imagination.

Posted by: tom humes at August 12, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #397334

Tom Humes, you are correct.

Hillary is in big trouble and since the Obama administration controls the Justice Department as well as the FBI; it remains to be seen where this will go. We know she lied and Judicial Watch was responsible for causing her to sign (under penalty of perjury) a document stating she had not sent classified material on her private server. We already know this is false because there have been at least 2 emails found that were classified as top secret. The question remains, does Obama trust Hillary to protect his legacy, or does he just flat out dislike her. If the first is true and the second is untrue, then any findings by the DOJ or FBI will be hidden until after the election. If not, she’s toast. Secondly, we find that Hillary is not only losing to several potential Republican candidates, but she is also losing to Bernie Sanders, or at least sanders is very close to her. Hillary is losing in the poles when it comes to the American voters trusting her. I think close to 60% of all voters distrust her. Of course, it is about this time that the left declares poles to not really mean anything.

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 1:21 PM
Comment #397336

C&J,
Sanders drew 70,000 people to his speeches in just three days. Yesterday Trump drew 2,200 to his first speech in a week, and he is the GOP front runner.

Of course, it is early. There have been other populists who ran hot and eventually crashed and burned. It is easy to be cynical. But there are some important aspects to this phenomenon that are worth noting.

First, Sanders is appealing to the Millennials. The 18 - 34 year old crowd has been suffering under crushing college debt, among other things. There is a strong sense tax breaks helped the 1% and left everyone else treading water. American workers have worked longer hours and are more productive than any other worker in the industrialized world, but only the richest of the rich reap any benefits in this country. There is a lot of resentment out there over the way our economic system has worked. It has worked great for the richest of the rich. For everyone else- not so much.

The point is, Sanders is making points that resonate with the electorate. The same cannot be said of HRC or any Republican candidate. Trump might make a claim, but notice his following is limited to a television audience. While 2,200 people showing up for his recent speech, and while that beats the other GOP candidates by a long shot, it is still miniscule compared to 70,000 showing up for Sanders in just three days.

Sanders is doing this by giving speeches that excite voters. There is no name calling. There is no slamming of his opponents. There is no strategy to build himself up by tearing others down. Instead, it is a very specific, issue-driven campaign fueled by resentment.

The Obama administration saved the economy and got us out of two wars. Now many people feel it is time for the other shoe to drop.

Posted by: phx8 at August 12, 2015 1:57 PM
Comment #397339

Sanders is speaking in liberal strongholds; Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Madison, New Orleans, Dallas.

LOS ANGELES — The overflow crowds showing up to hear Bernie Sanders these days are a testament not only to his current popularity and the campaign’s social-media savvy but also to the promotional abilities of an alchemy of like-minded interests: progressive activists, labor unions and even Sarah Silverman.

The comedian took to Twitter to let her nearly 6.7 million followers know she would be at a rally for the Democratic presidential hopeful here Monday. That event drew an estimated 27,500 people — about five times as large as any crowd that has turned out for Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Such turnout is no guarantee that Sanders will perform well in the crucial early-nominating states — fellow Vermonter Howard Dean preached to similarly large and frenzied audiences in mostly liberal enclaves in 2003, only to collapse as the Iowa caucuses approached.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-does-bernie-sanders-draw-huge-crowds-to-see-him/2015/08/11/4ae018f8-3fde-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #397341

phx8

Neither Sanders nor Trump will win a major party nomination. As I said, I am content if both run third party challenges.

Posted by: C&J at August 12, 2015 3:32 PM
Comment #397345

An election with 4 candidates would be one for the ages, C&J.

liberal candidate
Republican candidate
socialist candidate
Trump

Posted by: kctim at August 12, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment #397348

HRC may be a progressive, but she’s no liberal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #397349
HRC may be a progressive, but she’s no liberal. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 5:20 PM

10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals

Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench… Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed.

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns… Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful… Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky.

7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion…liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.

6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens… Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism.

5) Conservatives believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry… Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program.

3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country…Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us.

2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square… Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2007/04/27/10_differences_between_conservatives_and_liberals/page/2

HRC fits the liberal in all points…

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #397355

You might want to read up on classical liberalism, Blaine.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 12, 2015 8:14 PM
Comment #397356

Blaine you do know many of us have a different perspective of conservatives based upon their actions not their rhetoric.

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to shoot themselves and their families with gun more often than they protect them.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blinded society with segregated facilities where every individual is judged on the content of his character wallet and the merits of his actionscolor of his skin.

8) Conservatives are worship capitalists and believe that entrepreneurscorporations who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and only the middle class and poor should be punished for not being as successful

7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion…so we can have them as fodder for the war machine instead Well and because we believe that everyone must do as we say and that is why we want the government to stop the individual from making their own decisions.


6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies friends and those of different beliefs or skin color of the United States before they can harm American citizens…well while we may talk this line we don’t mind waiting until they have harmed our citizens. as long as it doesn’t affect our business interests, or that they haven’t for that matter as long as we can go kill them.


5) Conservatives believe it’s vitally importantto tell you the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt, while we grow big government, charge wars on credit cards while cutting taxes, high lower taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor, and theywe have never met a new military spending program we didn’t like or a chance to send your kids to fight for Israel at the next generations expense

4) Conservatives work hard to ensure that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry…

3) Conservatives are nationalistic, believe that America is a great 3rd world nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the few while trashing the environment cause God is coming anyway.


2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and because we do you should to, not just any God, our god as our church leaders decide, Just like Iran. We think insist that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges because we cannot force our will on the minorities of this country so we mistakenly think it is to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square… Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity as a form of government.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they pragmatic serve the corporations interests and because they work to destroy the middle class of the country.

Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires fascists when legislating from the bench…

Posted by: j2t2 at August 12, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #397357

j2, your comments are so ignorant, they’re not worth a response. Mr. Porter, classical liberalism compared to what? It was a list from Townhall.com; I realize it’s a conservative site, but which of the points do not fit HRC?

Posted by: Blaine at August 12, 2015 9:26 PM
Comment #397365

Well Blaine it seems there is a difference between a conservative and a liberal, you comments were ignorant enough to warrant a response. Look it’s alright if you want Townhall to blow smoke up your a** but when you reprint it here, well lets just say some of us don’t smoke.

Here is another view that may interest you.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-want-republican-party-144345793.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 13, 2015 8:16 AM
Comment #397366

j2, and your point is what?

Posted by: Blaine at August 13, 2015 9:16 AM
Comment #397368

I can’t speak for j2t2 and wouldn’t try to but it would appear to me that you are being informed that partisan BS doesn’t hold much water at WB. That’s all.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 13, 2015 9:23 AM
Comment #397374

Thanks speaks, since you are so eager to tell us what other leftist mean, perhaps you could explain what Warren Porter meant by, “HRC may be a progressive, but she’s no liberal”?

Since j2’s comments were in response to my links to definitions of a liberal. Do you agree with Warren or not. My opinion is there’s not much difference between a progressive or a liberal. But, I would consider Hillary to be a liberal. What say you???

Posted by: Blaine at August 13, 2015 10:19 AM
Comment #397430

My point, Blaine, is your description of the differences between conservatives and liberals is out of whack. You are trying to define Clinton with this crap from Townhall that doesn’t describe what you claim it describes. Specifically your mistaken about the definition of liberals as you are about the definition of conservatives yet you want others to pigeon hole Clinton based upon the total nonsense you want to use as the definition.

You see Blaine you have fallen victim to the propaganda of the conservative movement, that is why you lash out at my comments regarding conservatives. Just as the Townhall description of conservatives is wrong so is the Townhall description of liberals. To use this nonsense to try to make your point about Hillary is as ignorant my friend. So why not try again, with some real definitions of liberals, to make your case on Clinton.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 13, 2015 6:43 PM
Post a comment