HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WhaTHellsgoingonhere » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 4,129

Journal Archives

She's Goliath. But she moved to her comfort zone: being defensive

Hillary let's us know time and again that her greatest quality is her defense. She's been in so many storms and she's fought off all the attacks, and "Look at me, I'm still standing and ready for more!"

That's not leadership.

For the first time, she has the upper hand. She's Goliath. The war can finally be fought on her terms. But she kept drifting and drifting from her spot, closer to bedrock, Bernie Sanders. Bernie's demonstrating leadership, here, and she's finding she's fighting on his terms and, as a result, been doing what she does best: play defense.

Her supporters want to make her "defensiveness" all about sexism, but she never fought the fight on her terms, she fought it on someone else's terms. That was her decision.

Stupid.

Because she moves away (flips and flops) from her past positions, Hillary reminds me of that guy who gets caught in a lie, and on the fly has to make up another lie to cover up the first, and so on...

It doesn't look "presidential."
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 08:03 PM (2 replies)

News to you and your wife and her friends and everyone your circle has ever spoken to

So in 2013, EMILY’s List launched "Madam President" - our campaign to put a woman in the White House.

Electing a woman president in 2016 isn’t just important for the present. It’s important for the future. It’s important because right now, women are considerably less likely to even consider running for office. A woman in the Oval Office would prove there is literally no position too high, or too important, or too powerful for young girls and women to compete for.

To many women, it's the #1 priority.

I knew this. Women here knew this (most, if not all, deny it). The whole world knew this.

http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/emilys-list-introduces-madam-president


Here's a good article that sheds light on the young vs old woman disconnect I've been talking about for two days.

Sixty-nine percent of Democratic women and 46 percent of Democratic men hope to see a female president of the United States in their lifetime, according to a new Pew Research Center survey on women and leadership.

<I don't care about Republican women>

As much as I hope (and believe) we will elect a woman to lead the free world in the next decade, I don't hope it enough to vote against my principles.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-women-president-voters-political-party-balancing-20150114-column.html


The upshot is clear (isn't it?): There's a direct relationship between age and priorities (i.e., wanting to see a woman president).

Taken together, you and your wife and her friends and everyone you've ever met and spoken to really aren't that tuned in.


Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:32 PM (0 replies)

Consider this: you have Hillary, the most qualified candidate ever vs Bernie, the

...democratic socialist.

An outsider, with no understanding of the current political currents, would say: The extreme lefty better chill out and move to the center if he has any hope of toppling Goliath.

But we know that that's not what's happening, because we are cognizant of a Paradigm shift. From the very beginning, every single person, poster, and pundit UNDERSTOOD that it was Hillary who was going to have to start sounding a lot more like the (extreme or not) lefty, or she was going to be swept out to sea by the undertow.

That's all you need to know. Rejecting this, you'll continue to swat at false narratives like Don Quixote.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:07 PM (17 replies)

Lol Neither candidate will get didly-poo accomplished in the first 4 years

Hillary supporters are in denial about this. And if they're not, they're delusional. I see a Sanders election as a sign of things to come. By 2020, he'll pull those suckers to the left - JUST LIKE HE DID HILLARY - or they'll be replaced by more progressive Democrats.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:54 PM (0 replies)

Regarding gender...

The first thing I see is, "White Women" still vote Republican. The second thing I see is, "Having the first woman President isn't that important to young women." With respect to the latter, again, this goes to my theme above about priorities: Young women have placed "indentured servitude to banks" above "first woman president." As for white women voting Republican, that's fucked up on so many levels. I know it's filed under "Cultural War," but white women have to carry the day, here, to get women across the line. And if that's not bad enough, it gets worse: every single demographic is moving further to the left except white women. They won't budge. There was a graph posted here a while ago. The article was celebrating the fact that the country is becoming more democratic. Sure enough, every demographic (but white women has moved to the left). In its exuberance, the article failed to address the white woman vote.

Bernie has 2-3 million donors writing $30 checks to his campaign. No one expected that. But since he can do it, Elizabeth Warren can do it. Why Warren? Because she's a change candidate. Why, as you note, does Hillary have to rely on the establishment to get ahead? Because she's part of a failed establishment. Again, I reject your premise, Skinner. Hillary needs the establishment because she is the hanger-on of a failed ideology. Warren, by contrast, could conceivably garner $30 checks from 6-10 million donors.

It's about priorities, and young women are a reflection of where Democrats are today.

I'm about to Nader Neil deGrasse Tyson, so the next time his name appears in a thread at DU, the thread will be torpedoed by Hillary supporters.

On Bill Maher, deGrasse Tyson said (paraphrasing), "There are more women than men. You can control everything. Why don't you?"
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:51 PM (1 replies)

The Johnny Manziel story is a perfect teaching opportunity for the country, but...

only those of you who read this post will learn a damn thing.

Johnny's bipolar, it's obvious! It's not obvious to just anyone, but it's obvious to anyone who has seen bipolar disorder and worked with people with bipolar disorder. It's such a clear cut case, Johnny's picture would be next to bipolar in the dictionary. But rather than seeking the expertise of a psychiatrist, because Americans are totally ignorant, all we see is one sports reporter asking another reporter to tell them the latest: "he's suicidal, his family took him to rehab but he left, he wasn't drinking."

It's time for the country to have a conversation about mental illness. It's ridiculous to witness how this story is being reported.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:27 PM (5 replies)

Bernie's a Jew like I'm a Catholic: not practicing, born that way

This is such a lame meme:

Bernie has never, in 30 years, talked about this. Of course, someone will invariably get a hard on over and create something that's not there. By contrast, Hillary and her army are saying "women" like Rudy Guliani says 9/11. Or, to paraphrase Joe Biden, "Subject, noun, 'woman.'" So that takes care of this.

Sanders as the first Jewish president, and Clinton as the first woman president.

For whatever reason, Bernie Sanders has chosen not to emphasize his religion in his campaign. Perhaps it is because his campaign is concerned that lingering anti-Semitism would put him at a disadvantage. Perhaps it is because he is laser-focused on his campaign message of the people-versus-the-billionaire-class to the exclusion of everything else. But whatever the reason, the fact that Sanders has not emphasized his religion has the real-world effect of limiting its discussion as an issue in the Democratic presidential primary. As a liberal and as a person who values diversity, I think electing our first Jewish president would be a great thing for this country, and it is one of the many benefits I see of a Sanders presidency.

On the other hand, as the administrator of this website, I must admit some small amount of relief that his religion is not an issue because I cannot stomach the thought of reading post-after-post about "I would like to have a Jewish president, but not just any Jew!" For one thing, it just sounds bad. On its face it's a totally non-controversial thing to say but scratch the surface and it has a certain smell to it ifyouknowwhatImean. For another thing, Duh. Nobody here wants Eric Cantor to be president of the United States.


Okay, that was the set up, now let's get to your point (that doesn't bode well for your point).

"Which brings me to my point."

Now, allow me to state outright: The Clintons are part of the establishment, full stop. It is so obvious that it does not even need to be justified or explained.

GSM

OK, this here is your most intriguing point so far.

Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment, but because she is a woman she does not have full access to the privileges that accrue to the establishment. If you think that's wrong, take a look at the long history of female Presidents of the United States. Oh wait a second, there haven't been any female Presidents of the United States.

...There is a reason why the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States has strong ties to the establishment: Because she would not be the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States if she did not. Period. Full stop.

Excellent and correct point. But here's the issue, Skinner. Hillary was more qualified than Obama in 2008. Agreed? Well, I don't believe you if you argue that point. The Third Way was in its final throes. Obama promised "change," but surrounded himself by Third Wayers. I voted for Obama, but my vote was for a Bernie Sanders type. Had I known Obama was just another remnant of the Third Way, I have no idea how I would have voted. I was excited about casting a vote that was going to be historic, which ever way it went.

But Hillary's time has past her by. This is the point people are missing. Right now, the debate should be: the failed Third Way vs a New Deal for the 21st century. Instead, people are trying to hijack it: "it's about time a woman is president." Bernie fans are saying, "Hey, let's get are priorities straight. We passed on the Third Way in 2008 because we wanted change. Eight years later, our yearning for change has grown 10xn^100th time. But you guys are saying, 'WAIT! Let's stick with the failed Third Way because Hillary is the last hanger on, and she's a woman, ergo...'

I'm about to Nader Robert Reich, who will never be mentioned on DU again without the tread being torpedoed by Hillary supporters. Reich explained it thusly:

Hillary is the most qualified candidate for the system we have today.
Bernie is the most qualified candidate for the system we should have.


Now arguments about gender and religion only detracts from the issue. The debate about "Who's the most Progressive?" is a real debate and one Hillary is trying to poo-poo.

I'll repeat, because it's worth repeating. The failed Third Way was rejected in 2008 because Democrats voted for change. Instead, the got more failed Third Way. Why in the world should Democrats vote for a candidate who's ideology was already rejected and has failed us, resoundingly.

Word
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:15 PM (1 replies)

Warren recalling Hillary's "flip", says it's influenced by the influential

Before becoming the senior senator from Massachusetts, then-Harvard Law professor Warren joined Bill to discuss the problems facing middle-class Americans, and how “beholden” legislators may not always have their best interests in mind.

In this clip, Warren recounts a meeting she had with first lady Hillary Clinton in the late 1990s, Clinton’s position on bankruptcy legislation at that time, and how everything changed after she became a New York senator.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/18/flashback-elizabeth-warren-tells-a-story-about-hillary-clinton-wall-street-and-lobbying/

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:44 AM (0 replies)

Regarding Hillary's FA expertise, Bernie needs to say this

That's very impressive, Madam Secretary. You are qualified to teach a course at any university on foreign affairs. But you're repeated poor judgement to go to war disqualifies you from being Commander in Chief.

EDIT: Then he could double-down and say

Our involvement in Iraq and Libya have not only destabilized the Middle East and created ISIS, but it has created a never ending war, resulted in thousands of US lives lost and hundreds of thousands maimed, the displacement and death of innocent Iraqis, and has cost the American taxpayer trillions. The American people are sick and tired of your wars.

Now, what was it you were saying, Madam Secretary?

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 09:50 AM (1 replies)

Hillary has a carefully worded response to that. See if you can catch...

her omission.

"We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment.”

Sounds awesome! Doesn't it? This is how she fools people into believing she's going to do something when she's not going to do anything at all. You've got to pay attention to what she actually says, not what you think she's saying. Our minds trick us when we listen for what we want to hear.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Thu Feb 4, 2016, 07:33 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next »