What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Hillary Clinton thread. 'Done' but not going away. (2 Viewers)

Gr00vus said:
Apart from free trade (which is a loaded term to begin with), none of those things need champions in Federal government at this point. Quite the opposite in fact. If that's her platform, she should be a Republican and stop attempting to be a representative of the more liberal of the two major parties.
Click to expand...
No, I refuse to accept this. Hillary is a liberal because she believes that, in no particular order:

1. We need to do something about climate change (involving the government.)

2. The federal government needs to be involved in healthcare.

3. More money, not less, should be spent on public education and the federal government should play a major role.

4. There is institutionalized racism in the police and justice system in our country, and this needs to be constantly monitored.

5. There needs to be reasonable regulations regarding private gun ownership.

6. Gays and transgendered should not be discriminated against.

7. Muslims should not be discriminated against.

8. There should be a path to citizenship for undocumented Americans.

9. No person living in this country should starve, be without healthcare, shelter, or access to education.

10. In foreign affairs we should continue our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world.

11. Women's reproductive rights must be protected.

These are all "liberal" points of view that Hillary holds, which I share. Yet to you she and I are Republicans, simply because we believe in free trade and are pro-business. That's absurd.

 
Heard her on NPR this morning. I did vote for her and would vote for her again in a heartbeat, but she came off as whiny and self-centered.

 
timschochet said:
Yet to you she and I are Republicans, simply because we believe in free trade and are pro-business.
Click to expand...
Yep. You were a self professed Republican until the party went tilt. I'm not thrilled that people with your mindset want to wrap themselves in liberalism and try and define liberalism to those of us who've been liberals our whole lives now that you don't have a home for your brand of conservatism.

pro-business, pro-Wall Street, and yes, pro-corporate policies
Click to expand...
This is you, this is her, this isn't liberal. It's the 3rd way to Trumpsville. You don't get to be half liberal. You can't simultaneously be unfettered corporatist and defender of the little guy. It's untenable and leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest which result in lousy governance.

 
Gr00vus said:
pro-business, pro-Wall Street, and yes, pro-corporate policies
Click to expand...
This is you, this is her, this isn't liberal. It's the 3rd way to Trumpsville. You don't get to be half liberal. You can't simultaneously be unfettered corporatist and defender of the little guy. It's untenable and leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest which result in lousy governance.
Click to expand...
This is what's wrong with the DNC in 2017 . It's all far left concepts and no room for people who lean towards the middle.

 
There isn't anything that hasn't been said already, pro, con, love, hate, indifferent. It has all been said, reported, spun left and right.

I think Hillary does have a role moving forward, but as a speaker on policy and history. Hillary is incredibly well-read and prepared for everything and she is now steeped in 6 decades of politics. The Democratic Party does have a problem switching gears to the next generation, which is a shocker because Obama was supposed to hearken a new age. The leaders in 2016 were Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, Sanders, Reid. Those are some old codgers folks, and I say that affectionately, having known quite a few great old codgers myself. At best she becomes a bridge and moves out the way.

I think the discussion of what Hillary can be moving forward is a lot more interesting than what she has been. To me she is a link to the Democratic Party of the 1970's - Scoop Jackson, Tip O'Neil, and Hubert Humphrey (and to some extent though he was GOP, Rockefeller) - and those people believed in institutions and America's place in building a better world. When Hillary talks policy, I enjoy it. When she discusses herself, I loathe it, because she is constantly self-serving. Someone has to defend institutions out there, and if - moving forward - Hillary speaks of the Democratic Party (or even the GOP) in terms of policy and America's historic role here and abroad, then I will love it. If she insists on settling old scores and making excuses, then I think I and probably a lot of others will cringe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee said:
This is what's wrong with the DNC in 2017 . It's all far left concepts and no room for people who lean towards the middle.
Click to expand...
I don't consider pro-Wall Street and pro-corporate to be the middle. The pendulum has swung way too far in the favor of corporations, big business, Wall Street, etc. We need at least one major party that is actually putting the little guy, the individual first. That used to be the Democrats. Now we get Clintons, Bushes, Trumps, all firmly ensconced in the plutocracy, working hard to make rich people richer, #### the poor, and #### the working class, and #### the environment. No thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One other thought is just that now maybe freed of obligations to any office, or seeking office, and from the press and how she comes across, she will be freed. It might make her a more likeable, more honest person. Hillary hasn't lived in a world where what she said really didn't matter since oh maybe 1972. That's a hell of a thing. She ought to let loose and enjoy herself. Hell even Richard Nixon became better liked when he was older because he became this quirky, fascinating policy sage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hilts said:
Clinton plots her role in 2018 midterms, ready to hit campaign trail.
Click to expand...


"I understood there was anger and fear and people were really unhappy because of what had happened in the financial crash. I understood all of that," Clinton said. "What I didn't — and I say this in the book — I didn't really do well is conveying how much I understood of that, conveying how I got the despair and the anger."
Click to expand...
- I was driving around today and NPR had a guest on who has written a book about Presidential rhetoric. And he talked about how important being able to convey empathy is to a president, and how different presidents did it differently but for nearly all of them it made them great politicians and it was how they got elected at a minimum. He was even handed, and didn't seem pro/anti Dem or GOP, and even was fair to Trump IMO. But this really is something Hillary had near zero political talent for. - The author talked about FDR and how even though Hoover had been raised an orphan ad was essentially a self-made man and one of the all time great charitable people he was largely unloved, while FDR even though he was super-rich and had a weird accent could reach deep down into people's homes and connect to their feelings through the radio. I read the quote above and I think this is a person who was probably never born to be a politician.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't agree with the specific criticism of the Benghazi stuff (the biggest nothingburger in modern political history) or the server (a sloppy mistake followed by sloppy defense, but not a nefarious one and it should not have been a fatal one by any stretch).

But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.
Click to expand...
I didn't follow benghazi all that much. For me it's always been about her character and decision making. I will disagree strongly about the email stuff. One of two things is true about that incident. She either didn't understand what she was doing and refused to listen to those sound her advising her or she did know and didn't care. Either way, in this day and age both are huge flags with regard to national security. I just can't accept ignorance as a defense when it comes to this nation's cyber security. 

And if I am being honest the most frightening thing about the email incident is how easily it's done within the government. 

 
timschochet said:
No, I refuse to accept this. Hillary is a liberal because she believes that, in no particular order:

1. We need to do something about climate change (involving the government.)

2. The federal government needs to be involved in healthcare.

3. More money, not less, should be spent on public education and the federal government should play a major role.

4. There is institutionalized racism in the police and justice system in our country, and this needs to be constantly monitored.

5. There needs to be reasonable regulations regarding private gun ownership.

6. Gays and transgendered should not be discriminated against.

7. Muslims should not be discriminated against.

8. There should be a path to citizenship for undocumented Americans.

9. No person living in this country should starve, be without healthcare, shelter, or access to education.

10. In foreign affairs we should continue our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world.

11. Women's reproductive rights must be protected.

These are all "liberal" points of view that Hillary holds, which I share. Yet to you she and I are Republicans, simply because we believe in free trade and are pro-business. That's absurd.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tim. A good number of these aren't unique to liberals. 

And what is an "undocumented American"?

 
Gr00vus said:
I don't consider pro-Wall Street and pro-corporate to be the middle. The pendulum has swung way too far in the favor of corporations, big business, Wall Street, etc. We need at least one major party that is actually putting the little guy, the individual first. That used to be the Democrats. Now we get Clintons, Bushes, Trumps, all firmly ensconced in the plutocracy, working hard to make rich people richer, #### the poor, and #### the working class, and #### the environment. No thanks.
Click to expand...
And you think moving far left will defend the little guy?  Please.  Instead of making rich people richer, they just make the heads of the party richer and more powerful.  The little guy is still getting crapped on.  No one believes that the left defends the little guy.

 
Gr00vus said:
Yep. You were a self professed Republican until the party went tilt. I'm not thrilled that people with your mindset want to wrap themselves in liberalism and try and define liberalism to those of us who've been liberals our whole lives now that you don't have a home for your brand of conservatism.

This is you, this is her, this isn't liberal. It's the 3rd way to Trumpsville. You don't get to be half liberal. You can't simultaneously be unfettered corporatist and defender of the little guy. It's untenable and leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest which result in lousy governance.
Click to expand...
Killed it. Well done. :thumbup:   

 
Gr00vus said:
Yep. You were a self professed Republican until the party went tilt. I'm not thrilled that people with your mindset want to wrap themselves in liberalism and try and define liberalism to those of us who've been liberals our whole lives now that you don't have a home for your brand of conservatism.

This is you, this is her, this isn't liberal. It's the 3rd way to Trumpsville. You don't get to be half liberal. You can't simultaneously be unfettered corporatist and defender of the little guy. It's untenable and leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest which result in lousy governance.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Me and a whole lot of other people are not going to allow you to use the Democratic party as a litmus test. Yes I was a Republican and I left because the Democrats were closer to me on the issues. The GOP became extreme, and I don't want the Democrats to become extreme. THAT is what leads to Trumpsville.

 
timschochet said:
I mean people residing here without legal permission to do so.
Click to expand...
You're using the wrong word again Tim. 

Eta. And doing this hurts your cause. When you do this and aren't straight forward with your word it makes it seem like you have a problem with the term. There's nothing wrong with the term Tim. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
And you think moving far left will defend the little guy?  Please.  Instead of making rich people richer, they just make the heads of the party richer and more powerful.  The little guy is still getting crapped on.  No one believes that the left defends the little guy.
Click to expand...
The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions,  all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.

 
Gr00vus said:
The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions,  all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.
Click to expand...
Strangely, I agree with you. :thumbup:

Has Hell frozen over?

 
Gr00vus said:
The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions,  all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.
Click to expand...
Your history is off. The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of FDR, Harry Truman, and LBJ. None of those guys were ever anti-Wall Street or anti-business or anti-trade. And all of them, particularly FDR, were opposed by the extremist progressives of the time (such as Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party.)

 
timschochet said:
Sorry. Me and a whole lot of other people are not going to allow you to use the Democratic party as a litmus test. Yes I was a Republican and I left because the Democrats were closer to me on the issues. The GOP became extreme, and I don't want the Democrats to become extreme. THAT is what leads to Trumpsville.
Click to expand...
Had it ever occurred to you too maybe go fight to take your party back instead of trying to hijack the democratic party?  THAT is what is helping get to trump vs Hillary

 
I get it though. People hate centrism. Conservatives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't conservative enough. Progressives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't progressive enough. They want ideologues, not politicians, who will shove it in the face of the other party and refuse to work with them.

 
timschochet said:
Sorry. Me and a whole lot of other people are not going to allow you to use the Democratic party as a litmus test. Yes I was a Republican and I left because the Democrats were closer to me on the issues. The GOP became extreme, and I don't want the Democrats to become extreme. THAT is what leads to Trumpsville.
Click to expand...
If you're the Democratic party, then actual liberals need to find a new home. Saying corporations and Wall Street have way too much influence on U.S. government is not extreme, it's paying attention and understanding some things are more important than short term profits. Me "and a whole lot of other people" say your love affair with excessive corporate control of government and society is extreme and needs correction. Take you and your supply side, labor raping, environment destroying, carpetbagging many other people Republican selves back to your old party and leave the liberalism to actual liberals. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Had it ever occurred to you too maybe go fight to take your party back instead of trying to hijack the democratic party?  THAT is what is helping get to trump vs Hillary
Click to expand...
It's too late Commish. That battle was lost a long time ago, though I was slow to realize it. Now I have much more in common with Democrats, whatever Groovus claims. You realize that if it's Bernie vs. any kind of current Republican, I'm voting for Bernie, right? We've got to do something about climate change and Bernie will. None of this other stuff is nearly as important.

 
Gr00vus said:
If you're the Democratic party, then actual liberals need to find a new home. Saying corporations and Wall Street have way too much influence on U.S. government is not extreme, it's paying attention and understanding some things are more important than short term profits. Me "and a whole lot of other people" say your love affair with excessive corporate control of government and society is extreme and needs correction. Take you and your supply side, labor raping, environment destroying, carpetbagging many other people Republican selves back to your old party and leave the liberalism to actual liberals. 
Click to expand...
Well we disagree, rather strongly, on the issues you mention. But even so, I am staying for the reason I just pointed out: because climate change, IMO, is more important than anything else, and the Republicans refuse to be reasonable.

 
timschochet said:
It's too late Commish. That battle was lost a long time ago, though I was slow to realize it. Now I have much more in common with Democrats, whatever Groovus claims. You realize that if it's Bernie vs. any kind of current Republican, I'm voting for Bernie, right? We've got to do something about climate change and Bernie will. None of this other stuff is nearly as important.
Click to expand...
:bs:

 
timschochet said:
I get it though. People hate centrism. Conservatives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't conservative enough. Progressives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't progressive enough. They want ideologues, not politicians, who will shove it in the face of the other party and refuse to work with them.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't if this is what you really think Tim. 

 
The Commish said:
Just one of the many. It's not"liberal" to be against discrimination. That is simply being a good human being. 
Click to expand...
I'd like to believe that. I really would. But when Donald Trump the candidate proposed a ban on all people of the Muslim religion being able to come here, roughly 70% of Republicans agreed with him. That's not the Republican party I belonged to. That's something else altogether. So until attitudes like that change, I regard this as a liberal position.

 
timschochet said:
I'd like to believe that. I really would. But when Donald Trump the candidate proposed a ban on all people of the Muslim religion being able to come here, roughly 70% of Republicans agreed with him. That's not the Republican party I belonged to. That's something else altogether. So until attitudes like that change, I regard this as a liberal position.
Click to expand...
And you'll be wrong as long as you do. Perhaps you need to have more confidence in yourself. Your opinion isn't validated by being part of a political party

 
timschochet said:
Your history is off. The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of FDR, Harry Truman, and LBJ. None of those guys were ever anti-Wall Street or anti-business or anti-trade. And all of them, particularly FDR, were opposed by the extremist progressives of the time (such as Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party.)
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between being anti and saying that those elements of our society have far too much influence over the rest of it. And that's where we are now. That you refuse to recognize that, for whatever reason, makes you unfit for discussing these things in any useful way. You equate the TTP with free trade. It wasn't. It was a corporate power and money grab, unfettered from labor and environmental protections. It's been explained to you many times, yet you still champion the naive notion that all trade, however poorly conceived and regulated is good. And naive attitudes like yours are how we come to have wealth concentrated in the smallest proportion of people on the planet now than at any point in modern history, and getting worse. That is a markedly suboptimal outcome for the long term if your concern is what works for a significant proportion of the U.S. and world population.

We need wall street, we need business, we need trade. But they are supposed to serve the whole population of the U.S. (and beyond) not the other way around. We're way out of balance, to their overemphasized benefit, at this time. Your way, Hillary's way, would accelerate this imbalance. That approach should have no place in a liberal party. "The party of Hillary" has #### all to do with FDR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
There's a big difference between being anti and saying that those elements of our society have far too much influence over the rest of it. And that's where we are now. That you refuse to recognize that, for whatever reason, makes you unfit for discussing these things in any useful way. You equate the TTP with free trade. It wasn't. It was a corporate power and money grab, unfettered from labor environmental protections. It's been explained to you many times, yet you still champion the naive notion that all trade, however poorly conceived and regulated is good. And naive attitudes like yours are how we come to have wealth concentrated in the smallest proportion of people on the planet now than at any point in modern history, and getting worse. That is a markedly suboptimal outcome for the long term if your concern is what works for a significant proportion of the U.S. and world population.

We need wall street, we need business, we need trade. But they are supposed to serve the whole population of the U.S. (and beyond) not the other way around. We're way out of balance, to their overemphasized benefit, at this time. Your way, Hillary's way, would accelerate this imbalance. That approach should have no place in a liberal party. "The party of Hillary" has #### all to do with FDR.
Click to expand...
The reason I equated TTP with free trade (after a great deal of introspection in which I debated the issue) is that I came to the conclusion that other countries such as China and Russia would step in and offer trade agreements with those countries if we did not. To me, everything else, including all of the very reasonable complaints that you and others made about that deal, were superfluous to that stark fact.

And you're right. There is far too much concentrated wealth in this country and around the world. But I obviously disagree with you about how to resolve that.

 
And again Groovus and Commish, I want to stress that at least part of me believes that we may BOTH be wrong, that we're debating old arguments, 20th century arguments. The changes in technology combined with the threat to the world's climate may mean that the traditional disputes between haves and have nots may be obsolete. Not that I know where that leads, even if it is so.

 
timschochet said:
The reason I equated TTP with free trade (after a great deal of introspection in which I debated the issue) is that I came to the conclusion that other countries such as China and Russia would step in and offer trade agreements with those countries if we did not. To me, everything else, including all of the very reasonable complaints that you and others made about that deal, were superfluous to that stark fact.

And you're right. There is far too much concentrated wealth in this country and around the world. But I obviously disagree with you about how to resolve that.
Click to expand...
Fear is almost always a lousy reason to make policy. I don't give credence to the China/Russia boogeyman, when the cost is standard of living for workers and the global environment. If we can't make deals that don't result in race to the bottom for workers and our planet, we shouldn't make those deals - they're bad deals in the long run. If the Russians and Chinese want to run their people and their environment under, that's on them, it's not a game we should participate in any longer.

In regard to the bolded, I don't think you've engaged in an honest discussion about how to resolve it, at least here on this board. Step one isn't letting corporations self regulate and/or write trade agreements. Labor needs equal involvement, as does some representation for the environment. And other drivers need to be honored beyond consumer cost at point of sale and profit margin for corporations.

 
Gr00vus said:
Fear is almost always a lousy reason to make policy. I don't give credence to the China/Russia boogeyman, when the cost is standard of living for workers and the global environment. If we can't make deals that don't result in race to the bottom for workers and our planet, we shouldn't make those deals - they're bad deals in the long run. If the Russians and Chinese want to run their people and their environment under, that's on them, it's not a game we should participate in any longer.

In regard to the bolded, I don't think you've engaged in an honest discussion about how to resolve it, at least here on this board. Step one isn't letting corporations self regulate and/or write trade agreements. Labor needs equal involvement, as does some representation for the environment. And other drivers need to be honored beyond consumer cost at point of sale and profit margin for corporations.
Click to expand...
It was an issue of fear for me. My argument, which I know you disagree with, is that the rewards outweighed the disadvantages. This was President Obama's conclusion as well. By the way, should Obama be evicted from the Democratic party?

 
I don't consider myself pro-corporate at all, but I think the party has a big enough tent to welcome those who share views like fighting against discrimination, fighting to save the environment, and those who support universal healthcare as a right. People didn't like Hillary personally by and large and that's why she couldn't beat a moron. But if we chase off reasonable people who are done with the Republican party, I think that's a mistake. 

 
timschochet said:
And again Groovus and Commish, I want to stress that at least part of me believes that we may BOTH be wrong, that we're debating old arguments, 20th century arguments. The changes in technology combined with the threat to the world's climate may mean that the traditional disputes between haves and have nots may be obsolete. Not that I know where that leads, even if it is so.
Click to expand...
I'm very aware of what's coming. Globalism is unavoidable. Automation is unavoidable. That's why you can't be entering into trade deals that are going to export and entrench economic hardship and environmental damage. That stuff no longer stays exported, it comes right back here and fast. You outsource an increasingly shrinking pool of blue collar jobs to places that pay pennies a day, that's damaging to the workers in this country, and that's damaging to the U.S. economy long term. You outsource pollution, it doesn't stay sequestered to wherever you shipped it to - it's global climate change, not just Chinese climate change. We all pay, either explicitly in the price of goods accurately reflecting the labor and environmental costs of doing business, or implicitly when our taxes have to be used to clean up oil spill damage, mitigate increasingly severe damage caused by souped up environmental catastrophes, pay for military action in fuel producing regions, etc.

The choice is, do we acknowledge and explicitly account for these costs in the trade deals we make, or do we put vacuous boiler plate in the sections about labor and environmental protections and then pay much higher costs when the things we hand waved away in our "free trade" deal come due for payment? Do we export fair labor practices, acceptable standards of living, environmental protections - or do we export labor abuses and pollution? It's not just a touchy/feely consideration - there are long term cost/benefit consequences from these choices that ultimately effect us all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I'm very aware of what's coming. Globalism is unavoidable. Automation is unavoidable. That's why you can't be entering into trade deals that are going to export and entrench economic hardship and environmental damage. That stuff no longer stays exported, it comes right back here and fast. You outsource an increasingly shrinking pool of blue collar jobs to places that pay pennies a day, that's damaging to the workers in this country, and that's damaging to the U.S. economy long term. You outsource pollution, it doesn't stay sequestered to wherever you shipped it to - it's global climate change, not just Chinese climate change. We all pay, either explicitly in the price of goods accurately reflecting the labor and environmental costs of doing business, or implicitly when our taxes have to be used to clean up oil spill damage, mitigate increasingly severe damage caused by souped up environmental catastrophes, pay for military action in fuel producing regions, etc.
Click to expand...
With regard to the bolded, you may be right. Or maybe we have to make these agreements and install as low tariffs as possible as a means to deal with this. That is what many economists believe. I don't have the answers.

 
timschochet said:
With regard to the bolded, you may be right. Or maybe we have to make these agreements and install as low tariffs as possible as a means to deal with this. That is what many economists believe. I don't have the answers.
Click to expand...
If you truly want to be the party that rationally deals with climate change, you have to account for that in your economic and social policies, including free trade deals. This is what I mean when I say you can't be half liberal. If you're adopting that whole list of stuff you identified as liberal platform planks (and along with @The Commish I challenge whether most of those are exclusively liberal view points, I think many of our resident libertarians might claim some of those too at least), then you must account for them in your economic policy.  There's no way to address all these problems in a decoupled manner. And that's what I'm talking about when I say we've gone way too far in the favoring Wall Street/corporations direction - they have no use for anything that doesn't maximize short term profits at this point, pollute away as long as it cuts costs and makes this quarter's balance sheet look good. We've got to bring that back into balance with all the other elements of a healthy economy and society.

I want free trade, but that trade needs to benefit and enhance the well being of all participants, not just those who have the most to invest.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I don't consider myself pro-corporate at all, but I think the party has a big enough tent to welcome those who share views like fighting against discrimination, fighting to save the environment, and those who support universal healthcare as a right. People didn't like Hillary personally by and large and that's why she couldn't beat a moron. But if we chase off reasonable people who are done with the Republican party, I think that's a mistake. 
Click to expand...
Fwiw I'm of the "the more the merrier" mindset as long as you are working through the same general lens as me. We can disagree inside that context but as soon as you try to shift from the overall point of view we have a problem. Order of priority for me puts "we the people" first and foremost

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
460
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
464
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top