What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a liberal, I'm very concerned about the 2016 election. For starters, I kind of despise Hillary, who is an unrepentant warmonger in thrall to the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. And I don't think there's any chance anyone beats her in the primary. O'Malley is a lightweight just hoping to get the VP nod, and Bernie will capture the hearts of the extreme left wing who will turn out in droves for his campaign events, garnering him tons of great press while his number never get above 25 percent almost anywhere. Warren was the only legit opposition.

And I hate it when a party aligns behind a presumptive nominee, which is what is happening everywhere, as elected Democratic officials line up to endorse Hillary. When this happens, candidates don't get tested, and they don't have to really articulate the reasons why people should vote for them, other than "I'm going to win anyway" which is never a compelling campaign platform. As a result, such candidates often seem terribly weak in the general election and get knocked off by their primary-tested opponent.

I love Bernie, and I know the media will build him up as much as possible because they like a competitive race. But Hillary is going to ride her "presumptive nominee" status all the way to the general election, where she's going to suddenly be in a fight for her life vs. someone who has put together a highly functional campaign machine.
I feel like that really might not happen in this case because Bernie's appeal is when people actually stop and listen to his message. I think the media will intentionally marginalize him for as along as possible and any little dirt (like the essay that he's had to address in his last 3 big interviews) they can find will be brought up continually until Bernie breaks his calm demeanor. He's not particularly charismatic or exciting as a person, but he's the lone voice that a majority of Americans agree with on the issues, at least at present. It'll remain to be seen whether Hillary adopts his popular views and is able to convince enough people that she's not a liar (which she is, much like nearly every politician who desires to reach high office).

 
I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington?? :mellow:
Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.
Evenly divided? By what measure? There's not even a GOP front runner and given the GOP behavior over the last 10-12 years, how is it so "even" as you say? If one wants to fall back on "roughly have the country is conservative and half the country is liberal" that individual is missing the point, or doesn't understand the electoral college, or both.
By the only measure that counts - votes.

 
I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington?? :mellow:
Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.
Evenly divided? By what measure? There's not even a GOP front runner and given the GOP behavior over the last 10-12 years, how is it so "even" as you say? If one wants to fall back on "roughly have the country is conservative and half the country is liberal" that individual is missing the point, or doesn't understand the electoral college, or both.
By the only measure that counts - votes.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Electoral College votes are the only thing that matter and they can't be had until election night. And honestly, the last "close" election where one could suggest that it was "evenly divided" was Bush vs Gore coming down to Florida. Popular vote in this country is virtually meaningless which I maintain is part of the problem being manifest in Washington.

 
Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
:coffee:
New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy
That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.
Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...
Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.
What has she done that was "strong"?
I have no idea, that's just something that shows up in the polling and it seems to be her one supposed quality that does well. I think it's her tone and demeanor, that's my best guess. I'm also guessing that since that is the one thing that maybe "works" that her people will tell her to do more of it, act strong and decisive.

Of course she doesn't take challenging questions well and she doesn't take positions on key issues, like TPP and the Patriot Act, that people really care about, until she determines which is the popular position or after its a decided matter. I think as the campaign goes on this becomes more clear, but we shall see.
As I was saying (get past the fact this is NYPost, I'm sure the quotes are correct):

Hillary allows men at ‘women-only’ event amid weak turnoutHillary Clinton had trouble attracting high-powered women to a New York talk hosted by Silda Wall Spitzer two weeks before her campaign officially kicks off. Sources said that after ticket sales fizzled for an intimate, $2,700-per-person, “just for women” meeting on Monday, the event was thrown open to men at the 11th hour, and the deadline extended to buy tickets.

The “Conversation With Hillary Clinton” event at Midtown law firm Akin Gump was originally aiming to attract 125 women. An email invitation seen by Page Six said the event is “just for women.” But by Friday, “They’d only sold 50 tickets, so they threw it open to men,” a source said. “Ticket sales were supposed to close at 10 a.m. Sunday, but the hostesses were working the phones and pushed the deadline till Monday.”

We hear about 90 attendees included former Bill Clinton aide Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney and his husband, Randy Florke, Maurice Tempelsman, Jill Braufman (wife of hedge funder Daniel Nir), Jean Shafiroff and Susan Cole. The event began at noon, but Clinton arrived at 1 p.m. in “a royal blue jacket and black pants.” She then took pictures with donors and delivered a half-hour speech before leaving at about 2 p.m.

Silda introduced Clinton as a “tough, authentic leader,” which is probably more than she can say about her hard-charging ex Eliot. In a possible nod to her host, Clinton quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, quipping, “Every woman in public life needs to develop skin as tough as rhinoceros hide.”

Topics included “clean energy,” mental health care for college kids, keeping but “revising” ObamaCare, Vladimir Putin, and America’s heroin and meth “epidemic.

Meanwhile, on Monday, journalists covering Clinton met in Washington, DC, to grouse about inadequate access to the candidate. When we reached out to a local Clinton campaign rep who helped organize the event, she referred us to Clinton’s deputy national press secretary, who referred us to her “rapid response spokesperson,” who, not surprisingly, had no comment.
http://pagesix.com/2015/06/01/hillary-allows-men-at-women-only-event-amid-weak-turnout/

Obviously it's a knock-piece about how she couldn't get enough attendees, but I'm interested in the language of tough toughness that's being ascribed.

There's other oddball stuff here like.... the focus on heroin and meth addiction? And who does Akin Gump represent?

Also for the progs out there, note: "Keeping.... but revising Obamacare." Oh that's just our Hillary triangulatin', y'all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh look, it's lobbyists...

With health lobbying team from Patton Boggs, Akin Gump poised for new businessTodd Tuten, from left, Heide Bajnrauh, Lu Zawistowich, Karen Thiel and Nathan Brown, members of Akin Gump’s health-care innovations practice. (J. Lawler Duggan/For Capital Business)

Law and lobby giant Akin Gump is starting to capi­tal­ize on the hiring of a group of health-care lobbyists from Patton Boggs by pursuing a new strategy to capture work in the rapidly changing health-care field.

The firm has created a practice group called the “innovations practice,” aimed at helping pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers navigate roadblocks in two federal agencies whose rules are often at odds with one another: the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The FDA and CMS both play critical roles in how new drugs and treatments reach consumers, but their standards and decisions do not always align. The FDA determines whether a drug or treatment is safe and effective, while CMS determines whether it should be covered under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Companies often find themselves at an impasse if they get a drug approved by the FDA, but bump up against CMS, which can decline coverage of the drug under government-funded programs. Whether a drug is covered by such programs can drastically affect how accessible, affordable and successful a drug will be once it reaches the market.

“Going back a number of years, there was a growing disconnect in the minds of some companies bringing new treatments and products to market ... between approval of a product and actual coverage by government-funded health care programs,” said Todd Tuten, a senior policy adviser in Akin’s health policy team that joined from Patton in June. “What we’re trying to do is connect the dots between FDA and CMS decision-making.”

Tuten and his team represented Kos Pharmaceuticals, which made Niaspan, a drug that treats high cholesterol. Niaspan was approved by FDA as a prescription drug, but CMS considered it a prescription vitamin and thus not eligible to be covered under Medicare.

Tuten and his team gathered evidence to make their case that Niaspan should be considered a drug, and in 2006, CMS agreed that it would be covered under Medicare. That is the kind of problem that the new practice aims to solve, Tuten said.

Akin has long done health care compliance and FDA-related litigation on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. But the addition of the Patton lobbyists doubled Akin’s existing health policy team, and brought lobbying and reimbursement expertise to the table. For years, Akin was the No. 2 lobby firm in revenue behind Patton Boggs, but earlier this year became poised to claim the top spot after hiring Patton’s health policy team.

The new group was not created directly in response to the Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature health-care law that promised to bring a sea change in the health care industry — but it does seek to represent a growing subset of companies that are for the first time entering the health-care industry, encouraged by incentives written into the new law, said Nate Brown, an FDA lawyer at Akin and a member of the innovations practice.

The law expanded incentives for technology companies to start making products that are not considered traditional medical devices, but are performing health-care functions such as software that helps doctors diagnose or treat patients.

The Affordable Care Act “plus various technological forces have resulted in a lot of new companies involved in health care that aren’t traditional companies that have gone through the FDA and the CMS regulatory process for decades with drugs and medical devices,” Brown said. “Increasingly, you have new companies, often tech companies, that are suddenly making inroads into health care and aren’t familiar with these regulatory regimes, and need help thinking through whether they want to be in the U.S. market, how are they positioning their product, will it result in a need for approval by the FDA, and are they interested in reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid in a way that would shape their product?”
And that explains why Hillary was being hosted by Akin Gump and likely also why she was discussing revising the ACA (aka Obamacare)..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington?? :mellow:
Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.
I disagree with this too. I think the country, as a whole, prefers Democrats.
For someone that thinks he understands and thinks he is much smarter than others when it comes to politics you make an absurd statement like this one. How many states have Republicans as Govenors? The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. Why do liberal talk radio shows not do as well as Rush? Look at the ratings of Fox vs MSNBC, CNN etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm as sad today that the Dems can't find a "lock" to beat the GOP as I was when the Dems couldn't find someone to beat GWB. WTF is going on in Washington?? :mellow:
Country is fairly evenly divided. There is no such thing as a lock 18 months before an election when it's essentially 50-50.
I disagree with this too. I think the country, as a whole, prefers Democrats.
For someone that thinks he understands and thinks he is much smarter than others when it comes to politics you make an absurd statement like this one. How many states have Republicans as Govenors? The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. Why do liberal talk radio shows not do as well as Rush? Look at the ratings of Fox vs MSNBC, CNN etc.
eneric congraessional vote is sitting at a draw right now, which is horrible for the Rs considering how bad of a President Obama has been.

eight years of weak economics in the nidst of an energy boom is abysmal. he pissed away Iran, major cities are rioting, labor participation is a 37 year low...and the best the Rs can do is tie that ####-### record...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have any opinions of Hillary's choice of Roosevelt Island for the real-official Reset of her campaign launch?

It's just a metaphorical island, mainly because of the connotation of FDR.... but also because of the lack of accessibility, poor transportation, in Manhattan (and even then not...), etc.

This is MSNBC watching the poll numbers come in this morning and discussing the relaunch of the campaign and the enthusiasm (ie resignation) issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=gxrs8NHNxpU

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
As long as she makes a The Secret of My Succe$s reference at some point, I'm good with the Roosevelt Island choice.
That's funny. - I saw the movie Dark Water with Jennifer Connelly, that's what I always think of. I've been to NYC a good number of times and have never been there, always seemed like it would be cool to take that tram.

That's where the lunatic asylum used to be, it's a weird place by the look of it...

"I thought it was the worst portrayal they could have ever made of this island," he said of the film, which stars Jennifer Connelly and largely depicts Roosevelt Island as a filthy hellhole populated by sleazebags, delinquents and an icky wet ghost who leaves the water running.

...

As critics have pointed out, "Dark Water" is a movie about the horror of being priced out of the Manhattan real estate market. When the main character, an unemployed divorcee, rides the tram with her daughter for the first time, the girl points at Roosevelt Island and says, "Mommy, that's not the city."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going to Hillary’s kick-off rally? Go early!The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign launch is set for June 13 on Roosevelt Island in New York’s East River, a site, as our colleague Philip Bump points out, is hard to get to on a normal day.

For the Clinton rally it promises to be a true nightmare. From Manhattan, there are three ways to get there. First, you can meander via car through the desolate back streets of Queens after you go over the 59th Street (or Queensboro or Koch) Bridge and drive over a small, two-lane bridge.

You can take a subway under the very deep underground tunnel — which we’re told requires multiple escalators to get to the surface.

Or, if you don’t know someone with a jet ski or two-seat kayak, here’s the Loop’s much-preferred option: The tram from 59th and Second Avenue.

It only takes about five minutes and, at 250 feet up in the air, has some beautiful views up and down the river. There are reports that more than 100 (extremely, dangerously thin) people can get on the tram. We’re thinking maybe 50-60.

When you get off the tram, go toward the river, left at the end of the tennis bubble, and it’s a beautiful short walk down the river with nice views back to Manhattan along a narrow path that in no way can accommodate thousands of people — all of whom will be taking selfies. This better be a pretty limited, ticket-only event.

You should take food, water (it can get brutally hot at the FDR memorial) and go early. The tram, which costs $2.50, starts at 6 a.m. Be there.

Or watch it on television. Or wait a year. Or vote Republican.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/06/02/going-to-hillarys-kick-off-rally-go-early/

Hillary Clinton to launch campaign from one of New York’s least-accessible public placesThere is only one heavily inhabited island in New York City harder to get to than Roosevelt Island, where Hillary Clinton will hold her campaign kickoff later this month. That island is Rikers Island.

I'm not the type to go looking for metaphors in things! I am not that type! I am merely here to offer insights as a New Yorker-American into the ins and outs of New York life. Including the details of Roosevelt Island.

First of all: Roosevelt Island is a cool place to visit. It used to house a smallpox quarantine center at its southern end, which is still in the process of being restored (after partially collapsing a few years back). It's got a bunch of new housing and a spectacularly painted public pool. But it is about as inconvenient a place to get to in New York as is conceivable.

There are three ways onto the island.

By car: The red line shows the one route onto the island by car. You have to get to Queens and make your way through back streets in an industrial area to do so. The Queensboro Bridge (or whatever it is called now that New Yorkers ignore) passes over the island, but has no outlets onto it. (It would be hard to do so, given how high the bridge is.)

What's left, then, is that little scroungy two-lane bridge from Queens, limiting how many people can get across it. But most people don't.

By train: Instead, they usually use the subway (the black line). Now, here is a secret about taking the subway to Roosevelt Island: It is terrible.

In order to get under the East River, the train tunnel is very deep underground, meaning you have to take about six escalators up to get to the surface. Maybe more, I haven't counted. I tried to take the stairs once, instead, and actually almost passed out. I'm not an athlete. But still.

By tram: The cool way to get to the island, the way that's mentioned in Hollywood Movies, is to take the newly refurbished tram, seen here in blue.

It holds maybe 20 people at a time and takes probably 10 minutes. It's beautiful! I recommend it to visitors. However, it is not mass transit in the sense of accommodating masses of people for rapid transit.

(Update: Twitter tram apologists point out that it theoretically holds 125 people. That 1) seems uncomfortable and 2) barely makes the trip more feasible for moving crowds across the river.)

I am not the type to find metaphors in things, as I said. I am just reporting that the Hillary Clinton campaign is launching from one of the least accessible parts of New York City. That is all I am doing here in this article. Nothing more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/01/hillary-clinton-to-launch-campaign-from-one-of-new-yorks-least-accessible-public-places/

This is not a metaphor, people, this is a campaign relaunch, or the real launch-launch (and the other launch, the video launch and listening nodding tour, was just a pre-launch).

ETA - Hillary is getting ready... again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have any opinions of Hillary's choice of Roosevelt Island for the real-official Reset of her campaign launch?

It's just a metaphorical island, mainly because of the connotation of FDR.... but also because of the lack of accessibility, poor transportation, in Manhattan (and even then not...), etc.

This is MSNBC watching the poll numbers come in this morning and discussing the relaunch of the campaign and the enthusiasm (ie resignation) issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=gxrs8NHNxpU
using words like relaunch and reset are bad...it makes it sound like after all this time she still doesn't know how to campaign and needs to start over

 
Anyone have any opinions of Hillary's choice of Roosevelt Island for the real-official Reset of her campaign launch?

It's just a metaphorical island, mainly because of the connotation of FDR.... but also because of the lack of accessibility, poor transportation, in Manhattan (and even then not...), etc.

This is MSNBC watching the poll numbers come in this morning and discussing the relaunch of the campaign and the enthusiasm (ie resignation) issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=10&v=gxrs8NHNxpU
using words like relaunch and reset are bad...it makes it sound like after all this time she still doesn't know how to campaign and needs to start over
retread

 
Oh look, it's lobbyists...

With health lobbying team from Patton Boggs, Akin Gump poised for new businessTodd Tuten, from left, Heide Bajnrauh, Lu Zawistowich, Karen Thiel and Nathan Brown, members of Akin Gump’s health-care innovations practice. (J. Lawler Duggan/For Capital Business)

Law and lobby giant Akin Gump is starting to capi­tal­ize on the hiring of a group of health-care lobbyists from Patton Boggs by pursuing a new strategy to capture work in the rapidly changing health-care field.

The firm has created a practice group called the “innovations practice,” aimed at helping pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers navigate roadblocks in two federal agencies whose rules are often at odds with one another: the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The FDA and CMS both play critical roles in how new drugs and treatments reach consumers, but their standards and decisions do not always align. The FDA determines whether a drug or treatment is safe and effective, while CMS determines whether it should be covered under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Companies often find themselves at an impasse if they get a drug approved by the FDA, but bump up against CMS, which can decline coverage of the drug under government-funded programs. Whether a drug is covered by such programs can drastically affect how accessible, affordable and successful a drug will be once it reaches the market.

“Going back a number of years, there was a growing disconnect in the minds of some companies bringing new treatments and products to market ... between approval of a product and actual coverage by government-funded health care programs,” said Todd Tuten, a senior policy adviser in Akin’s health policy team that joined from Patton in June. “What we’re trying to do is connect the dots between FDA and CMS decision-making.”

Tuten and his team represented Kos Pharmaceuticals, which made Niaspan, a drug that treats high cholesterol. Niaspan was approved by FDA as a prescription drug, but CMS considered it a prescription vitamin and thus not eligible to be covered under Medicare.

Tuten and his team gathered evidence to make their case that Niaspan should be considered a drug, and in 2006, CMS agreed that it would be covered under Medicare. That is the kind of problem that the new practice aims to solve, Tuten said.

Akin has long done health care compliance and FDA-related litigation on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers. But the addition of the Patton lobbyists doubled Akin’s existing health policy team, and brought lobbying and reimbursement expertise to the table. For years, Akin was the No. 2 lobby firm in revenue behind Patton Boggs, but earlier this year became poised to claim the top spot after hiring Patton’s health policy team.

The new group was not created directly in response to the Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature health-care law that promised to bring a sea change in the health care industry — but it does seek to represent a growing subset of companies that are for the first time entering the health-care industry, encouraged by incentives written into the new law, said Nate Brown, an FDA lawyer at Akin and a member of the innovations practice.

The law expanded incentives for technology companies to start making products that are not considered traditional medical devices, but are performing health-care functions such as software that helps doctors diagnose or treat patients.

The Affordable Care Act “plus various technological forces have resulted in a lot of new companies involved in health care that aren’t traditional companies that have gone through the FDA and the CMS regulatory process for decades with drugs and medical devices,” Brown said. “Increasingly, you have new companies, often tech companies, that are suddenly making inroads into health care and aren’t familiar with these regulatory regimes, and need help thinking through whether they want to be in the U.S. market, how are they positioning their product, will it result in a need for approval by the FDA, and are they interested in reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid in a way that would shape their product?”
And that explains why Hillary was being hosted by Akin Gump and likely also why she was discussing revising the ACA (aka Obamacare)..
The Clintons... and more health care lobbyists:

Bill Clinton Is the Keynote Speaker for the Health Insurance Lobby Bash in Nashville
Clinton's cozy relationship with the group that killed the 'public option' seems ill-timed.

The Clintons made over $100 million from paid speeches to domestic and foreign corporations since the year 2000. Much of this money came from Wall Street banks, health care companies, and other corporations with interests before the government – raising concerns about influence-buying.After Hillary Clinton formally announced her own presidential run, Bill Clinton was asked whether he would continue to do paid speeches to groups that have interests before the government. He replied that he would, because “I gotta pay our bills.”

This week, the nature of paying the Clintons' bills will take the form of keynoting the Nashville conference of the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the chief lobbying group for the health insurance industry.

Clinton will serve as the keynote speaker on Friday, in a session AHIP's schedule strictly rules that “no press” is allowed – meaning that we will have no idea what Bill Clinton plans to say to the insurers' lobby.

Interestingly, while Clinton is the main event, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will speak at the conference the day before. His speech is titled: “Shaping America's Future: Major Trends, New Ideas, and Big Decisions.”

This isn't actually the first time Clinton spoke to AHIP. In June of 2010, just months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the former president took $175,000 from the group for a speech at one of their events.

Recall that AHIP played the primary role in killing the public health insurance option and trying to sink the Affordable Care Act altogether. It was estimated to have funneled around $100 million into the Chamber of Commerce's scorched earth campaign to defeat the legislation.

Today, AHIP continues to advocate for deregulation of the health care market and to fight any move towards a more comprehensive and efficient system, such as an expansion of Medicare. By any measure, it stands completely opposed to the progressive health care agenda, which raises questions about why Clinton sees it as an appropriate outlet on his speech circuit.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bill-clinton-keynote-speaker-health-insurance-lobby-bash-nashville

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A mysterious artist is posting cartoons attacking Goldman Sachs and Hillary Clinton around New York CityA street artist has set their sights Goldman Sachs and is putting up stickers around New York City attacking the investment giant.

Business Insider has seen two of the stickers, which both feature a version of the company's logo modified to say "Goldman Rats" and an image of a cartoonish rodent sticking out its tongue.

One of the stickers (pictured above) is captioned "PHOOEY ON YOU, POORS." I spotted it in the subway last week, but it seems to have been around much longer. A Pinterest user based in New York took a picture of the same sticker about one year ago.

The second sticker also includes a shot at Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Text surrounding a picture of the cartoon rat declares, "WE'VE SELECTED HILLARY FOR YOU SUBMIT, POORS."

I spotted the Clinton sticker in a Brooklyn subway station last week, but it seems to have appeared in multiple locations. A blog dedicated to Brooklyn street art posted a picture taken of one of the stickers last month.


The Clinton sticker is clearly relatively new. In the sticker, the "H" in "Hillary" is copied from her campaign logo, which was unveiled when she launched her campaign in April. It echoes a line of attack that has been used by one of Clinton's Democratic rivals, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who has suggested Goldman Sachs would like to see her in the White House.

It's not clear who made the stickers..

The "Phooey" sticker bears a graffiti signature, but I can't make out what it says. If you know more please get in touch.

Check out the Clinton "Goldman Rats" sticker below.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mysterious-goldman-rats-stickers-in-new-york-2015-6#ixzz3c1ZI2WlX


 
If the drawings were against Bernie Sanders, several of you guys would be certain that Hillary was behind it.
No, these are clever. No one in politics is clever.
Really. We have Banksy stuff down here, I walked right by one the other day. This kind of political art is coming from the street.

But at any rate the Brock/Blumenthal MO is digging up the deep personal stuff that somehow reveals the opponent's core, inner yet hidden ideology or some dark secret about their behavior. They also are known for getting that material into the mainstream press and on popular online sites. - This street art stuff is grassroots, clever and satirical, not their style.

It's also not the first time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which brings up why Hillary set up her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. - Sure it's near where she lives (Westchester, Long Island) and the Foundation (Harlem), but it also is still NYC. It does have hip, young, vibrant gentrified status... and it also has a very strong counterculture.

With all the images surrounding regarding wealth, insider connections and Wall Street she just seemed to reaffirm that with the site she chose. Now she's having her reset relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island, which also seems like an odd choice, it will be hard to get to, it's physically isolated, it's a weird way to re-kick off a campaign.

The kickoff site itself is gorgeous, by the look of it, the background is Manhattan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chafee would struggle to get elected to the RI State Senate right now, he is not popular here. It is laughable that he is running for President but I suppose he has to spend all that family money somehow.

 
Which brings up why Hillary set up her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. - Sure it's near where she lives (Westchester, Long Island) and the Foundation (Harlem), but it also is still NYC. It does have hip, young, vibrant gentrified status... and it also has a very strong counterculture.

With all the images surrounding regarding wealth, insider connections and Wall Street she just seemed to reaffirm that with the site she chose. Now she's having her reset relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island, which also seems like an odd choice, it will be hard to get to, it's physically isolated, it's a weird way to re-kick off a campaign.

The kickoff site itself is gorgeous, by the look of it, the background is Manhattan.
For crying out loud, now you are criticizing her for the location of her campaign headquarters? "Yes, it is near where she lives and the Foundation is located, but it is still NYC and near Wall Street" Do have any idea how silly you sound saying this? Where was she supposed to set it up, Gray Eagle, Minnesota? Honestly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you post things like this?

And the only people calling it a reset/relaunch of the campaign are her critics. After she formally announced her candidacy on April 13, her people were pretty clear that the formal rollout or kickoff of the campaign would come a couple months down the line (which you criticized at the time saying she was delaying this because she was afraid to face reporters, crowds or do real interviews). You didn't consider it an actual campaign launch at the time and now you are calling a relaunch. JFC.

 
Which brings up why Hillary set up her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. - Sure it's near where she lives (Westchester, Long Island) and the Foundation (Harlem), but it also is still NYC. It does have hip, young, vibrant gentrified status... and it also has a very strong counterculture.

With all the images surrounding regarding wealth, insider connections and Wall Street she just seemed to reaffirm that with the site she chose. Now she's having her reset relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island, which also seems like an odd choice, it will be hard to get to, it's physically isolated, it's a weird way to re-kick off a campaign.

The kickoff site itself is gorgeous, by the look of it, the background is Manhattan.
For crying out loud, now you are criticizing her for the location of her campaign headquarters? "Yes, it is near where she lives and the Foundation is located, but it is still NYC and near Wall Street" Do have any idea how silly you sound saying this? Where was she supposed to set it up, Gray Eagle, Minnesota? Honestly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you post things like this?

And the only people calling it a reset/relaunch of the campaign are her critics. After she formally announced her candidacy on April 13, her people were pretty clear that the formal rollout or kickoff of the campaign would come a couple months down the line (which you criticized at the time saying she was delaying this because she was afraid to face reporters, crowds or do real interviews). You didn't consider it an actual campaign launch at the time and now you are calling a relaunch. JFC.
Ok, more serious comment. Is it really a criticism if i ask for discussion about her HQ? This is a political thread, I was talking politics. Yes, I think the "optics" of Manhattan and the method of her campaign is a distinct issue from her personal behavior and qualifications to be president. Obama had his HQ in Chicago, at the Prudential Building, that was very nice as well, but his image was completely different and Chicago's rep is different. - And his kickoff speech was in Springfield, extremely accessible, you see no negative aspects with Hillary's choice of venue? Or is it just great? Like I said it's a beautiful location, but you have to admit she has some image issues to deal with, no? You don't think Wall Street is one of them?

 
Which brings up why Hillary set up her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. - Sure it's near where she lives (Westchester, Long Island) and the Foundation (Harlem), but it also is still NYC. It does have hip, young, vibrant gentrified status... and it also has a very strong counterculture.

With all the images surrounding regarding wealth, insider connections and Wall Street she just seemed to reaffirm that with the site she chose. Now she's having her reset relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island, which also seems like an odd choice, it will be hard to get to, it's physically isolated, it's a weird way to re-kick off a campaign.

The kickoff site itself is gorgeous, by the look of it, the background is Manhattan.
For crying out loud, now you are criticizing her for the location of her campaign headquarters? "Yes, it is near where she lives and the Foundation is located, but it is still NYC and near Wall Street" Do have any idea how silly you sound saying this? Where was she supposed to set it up, Gray Eagle, Minnesota? Honestly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you post things like this?

And the only people calling it a reset/relaunch of the campaign are her critics. After she formally announced her candidacy on April 13, her people were pretty clear that the formal rollout or kickoff of the campaign would come a couple months down the line (which you criticized at the time saying she was delaying this because she was afraid to face reporters, crowds or do real interviews). You didn't consider it an actual campaign launch at the time and now you are calling a relaunch. JFC.
Ok, more serious comment. Is it really a criticism if i ask for discussion about her HQ?
It seems that way when you mention "wealth, insider connections and Wall Street" - the only point was another smear and a rehash of your nit picking Hillary bashing for every single thing she does and it is getting really tiresome. She sets up her HQ near where she lives and where the Foundation is located but you used it as another opportunity to take a cheap shot against her. I would say you are better than that, but of late that has never been the case.

Please talk about legitimate issues, not setting up her HQ in Brooklyn. Please.

 
Which brings up why Hillary set up her campaign HQ in Brooklyn. - Sure it's near where she lives (Westchester, Long Island) and the Foundation (Harlem), but it also is still NYC. It does have hip, young, vibrant gentrified status... and it also has a very strong counterculture.

With all the images surrounding regarding wealth, insider connections and Wall Street she just seemed to reaffirm that with the site she chose. Now she's having her reset relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island, which also seems like an odd choice, it will be hard to get to, it's physically isolated, it's a weird way to re-kick off a campaign.

The kickoff site itself is gorgeous, by the look of it, the background is Manhattan.
For crying out loud, now you are criticizing her for the location of her campaign headquarters? "Yes, it is near where she lives and the Foundation is located, but it is still NYC and near Wall Street" Do have any idea how silly you sound saying this? Where was she supposed to set it up, Gray Eagle, Minnesota? Honestly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you post things like this?

And the only people calling it a reset/relaunch of the campaign are her critics. After she formally announced her candidacy on April 13, her people were pretty clear that the formal rollout or kickoff of the campaign would come a couple months down the line (which you criticized at the time saying she was delaying this because she was afraid to face reporters, crowds or do real interviews). You didn't consider it an actual campaign launch at the time and now you are calling a relaunch. JFC.
Ok, more serious comment. Is it really a criticism if i ask for discussion about her HQ?
It seems that way when you mention "wealth, insider connections and Wall Street" - the only point was another smear and a rehash of your nit picking Hillary bashing for every single thing she does and it is getting really tiresome. She sets up her HQ near where she lives and where the Foundation is located but you used it as another opportunity to take a cheap shot against her. I would say you are better than that, but of late that has never been the case.

Please talk about legitimate issues, not setting up her HQ in Brooklyn. Please.
Shill out dude.

 
For crying out loud, now you are criticizing her for the location of her campaign headquarters? "Yes, it is near where she lives and the Foundation is located, but it is still NYC and near Wall Street" Do have any idea how silly you sound saying this? Where was she supposed to set it up, Gray Eagle, Minnesota? Honestly, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you post things like this?

And the only people calling it a reset/relaunch of the campaign are her critics. After she formally announced her candidacy on April 13, her people were pretty clear that the formal rollout or kickoff of the campaign would come a couple months down the line (which you criticized at the time saying she was delaying this because she was afraid to face reporters, crowds or do real interviews). You didn't consider it an actual campaign launch at the time and now you are calling a relaunch. JFC.
TYPICALLY, when one announces their candidacy for a position, that's when they are announcing their candidacy. I guess this sorta explains Tim's "well, when I said X I meant Y" shtick.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
The issue -- far from the spotlight when she last ran in 2008 -- has taken on far greater importance in the wake of GOP-passed laws in recent years they say are aimed at reducing voter fraud, but Democrats say depress voter turnout. Democrats argue stringent voting laws -- limit early voting opportunities or require ID to register to vote -- most affect the poor, who may not have a valid ID, and those who can't take off work to head to the polls.

What's more, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that a key aspect of President Lyndon Johnson's Voting Rights Act of 1965 was no longer constitutional.

The changes have drawn Democrats -- including lawyers close to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee -- into a voting rights fight that some African-Americans, like South Carolina Democrat Bakari Sellers, are calling "the greatest challenge of our generation."

Clinton will push for "swift action" on the issue and knock Republicans for supporting voting laws that she says keep people away from the ballot box.

The comments will come during a speech at Texas Southern University, a historically black college, after Clinton receives an award named after Barbara Jordan, a pioneer African-American lawmaker and civil rights leader.


Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

Clinton will "draw a sharp contrast with Republicans who have fought to curb early voting," the aide said. In particular, she will target efforts in North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin and Florida.

The former first lady has long been a supporter of voting rights: She helped register voters in Texas' Rio Grande Valley during the George McGovern's failed 1972 presidential run. But supporting voting rights now has the added benefit of helping keep together the coalition of voters that elected and re-elected President Barack Obama.

Obama won 93% of African-American voters in 2012 and 95% in 2008, according to exit polls. Some Democrats worry that Clinton needs a similar performance with African-American voters and disenfranchisement is an issue that Democrats hope will activate that base.

The first few months of Clinton's campaign have seen a number of events and trips focused on African-American voters.

In her first speech as a candidate, Clinton called for mandatory police body cameras across the country and end "era of mass incarceration," an issue that connected with African-American activists concerned about black men dying at the hands of law enforcement.

Clinton also focused on a minority-owned business in her first trip to South Carolina, a state with a sizable African-American population that overwhelmingly picked Obama over her in the 2008 primary.

"Secretary Clinton is addressing the right issue in the right place at the right time," Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told CNN on Wednesday.

"It is our hope that she and presidential contenders on both sides of the aisle will not only address the issue but support fixing the badly broken Voting Rights Act," the NAACP president said, arguing that anyone not "well versed and strongly positioned in our nation's voting and criminal justice rights challenges" will likely not be "deemed by a majority of the electorate as deserving to hold the office."

Clinton's top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, has also taken on the fight by filing lawsuits challenging voter restriction laws in Ohio and Wisconsin. He told The New York Times on Wednesday that, "We should all want to ensure that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote and have their vote counted."

Supporting voting rights was one of the first issues the former secretary of state dove head first into shortly after leaving the State Department with a speech at the American Bar Association's annual meeting in San Francisco in August 2013.

Clinton condemned voter ID laws, telling the audience of lawyers that they are bringing back the "old demons of discrimination."

"We do, let's admit it, have a long history of shutting people out: African-Americans, women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities," Clinton said. "And throughout our history, we have found too many ways to divide and exclude people from their ownership of the law and protection from the law."

Rhetoric like that, according to Sellers, was welcome to many in the African-American community.

"This message whether it is her speech on immigration, whether or not it is her speech on police reform, it has to be heard in the barber shops, not just by the pastors, but by their congregations," Sellers said. "It has to reverberate."

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
The issue -- far from the spotlight when she last ran in 2008 -- has taken on far greater importance in the wake of GOP-passed laws in recent years they say are aimed at reducing voter fraud, but Democrats say depress voter turnout. Democrats argue stringent voting laws -- limit early voting opportunities or require ID to register to vote -- most affect the poor, who may not have a valid ID, and those who can't take off work to head to the polls.

...
This is the swing where the DNC finance chairman is improperly helping her fundraise, right?

 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/clinton-campaign-julian-castro-hillary-vp-hispanic-118619.html

The Democratic National Convention isn’t for 13 months, and Hillary Clinton isn’t the party’s nominee, but some Hispanic Democratic leaders are already pushing hard for Julián Castro to be her running mate — or at least a top contender for the job.

The former San Antonio mayor and current housing secretary was in Washington while Clinton raised money in his hometown on Wednesday, but his name is on the minds and lips of Democrats close to the Clinton camp as the presidential front-runner crosses Texas for campaign fundraisers and a Houston speech on Thursday.

Story Continued Below


The flashy trial balloon and Castro’s innate appeal have likely ensured the Mexican-American Cabinet member a place on Clinton’s vice presidential long list if she wins the nomination, Democrats close to Clinton said. But Castro hardly has any relationship with the candidate herself, and the effort has gotten a mixed reception at best.

Democrats say it’s far too early for this conversation — arguing that it’s unproductive to talk about a general election ticket when Clinton is battling three other declared Democratic candidates and the ever-present perception of inevitability.

What’s more, several Democrats warned, Castro’s backers run the risk of overplaying their strong hand.

“If I were Julián Castro I’d be worried,” said one Clinton ally with an eye on Democrats’ efforts to woo Hispanic voters. “Others who are in his corner need to dial down those effusive musings.”

Still, there’s a political logic in letting the pro-Castro drumbeat go on.

Clinton’s campaign sees Hispanic voters as crucial to her success, both in swing states like Florida and early-voting states like Nevada, where the candidate last month unveiled an immigration agenda that surprised even the Obama White House with its scope and aggressiveness.

And Castro, an engaging speaker and a fresh young face at 40, would make it somewhat harder for Republicans to paint the 67-year-old Clinton as the candidate of the past.

Former HUD secretary and San Antonio mayor Henry Cisneros ratcheted up the Castro speculation with a recent appearance on Univision, the Spanish-language channel owned by close Clinton ally Haim Saban.

“What I am hearing in Washington, including from people in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is that the first person on their lists is Julián Castro,” Cisneros, who was considered for the vice presidency in 1984, said. “He is the superior candidate considering his record, personality, demeanor and Latin heritage.”

Castro has largely played along, despite telling a Washington audience, “I’m not holding my breath” on Wednesday. He called Republican questions about Clinton’s private email address a “witch hunt” last month, and Cisneros — who said he has spoken to Bill Clinton about Castro — laughed when asked by POLITICO whether Castro wanted to be considered for the position.

“Is he a red-blooded American male?” Cisneros asked rhetorically. “I would be hard-pressed to imagine a scenario where a Latino, and particularly Julián Castro, was not on that short list. It makes so much sense.”

Cisneros is just one of several prominent Hispanic leaders who are promoting Castro. Democratic National Committee Finance Chairman Henry Muñoz told BuzzFeed in May that Castro “deserves to be on the short list,” and New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who was born in Puerto Rico, said the concerted effort from Hispanic leaders to promote Castro reminded her of the united rally around Sonia Sotomayor when she was under consideration for a Supreme Court nod.

Clinton and Castro haven’t spoken since they appeared together on a panel in Washington in April, but people close to the campaign acknowledged that it’s politically useful for the candidate to keep his name in the public conversation, long before her operation formally starts vetting prospects. That way she can implicitly emphasize to Hispanic voters that she is taking their concerns about representation seriously.

“A lot of Latino Democrats are concerned about what happens if Marco Rubio becomes the [Republican nominee], or Jeb Bush, or even if Scott Walker becomes the nominee and he chooses Rubio to be the VP,” said a Democratic strategist close to the Clinton camp, adding that many see Castro as an easy solution to the dilemma.

And while the early pro-Castro campaign is risky, it effectively ensures he will be considered seriously when it comes time for Clinton to choose a running mate, assuming she wins the nomination.

“There’s an entire art to getting yourself on the list,” explained California Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s White House who helped to vet Al Gore. “There’s value to being talked about.”

“But at the end of the day,” Lehane said, “there are really two factors: How does the [candidate] really personally feel about the person who is going to be the No. 2, and the single biggest factor is: Is the person ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? That’s a ‘You know it when you see it’ issue.”

The answer to the first question could change as Clinton travels the country, especially if Castro emerges as a campaign surrogate, considering that the two have met only a handful of times and that he is actually closer to Bill Clinton than to Hillary.

But Lehane’s second question — and Castro’s inexperience — is giving some Washington Democrats pause.

The HUD secretary has been in Washington for less than a year after running San Antonio from 2009 to 2014, and Democratic staffers and lobbyists in the capital arched eyebrows and whispered about Castro’s policy chops following what they saw as his inelegant performances on “The Daily Show” and in congressional budget hearings this year.

Some Democrats told POLITICO that Castro would be a better candidate four years down the road and that Clinton might face serious trouble if she were to put him on the ticket.

“Yes, he’s a rising star, and people even talk about him being the first Latino president,” said the Democratic strategist allied with Clinton. “But now is just not the time, in this day and age when people are looking for real presidential experience. [President Barack] Obama was on the receiving end of charges of not being prepared.”

“John McCain chose Sarah Palin and was bashed for that,” she added. “She has more experience than [Castro] does.”

Castro, at least in public, coyly dismisses the veep buzz, telling CNN recently, “If I had a dime for every amount of speculation that happens in D.C., you know, I think all of us would be wealthy.”

But the public nature of the pro-Castro campaign has nonetheless rubbed some Clinton allies and staffers the wrong way: One Democratic campaign veteran who is in frequent contact with Clinton’s top donors said such a high-profile effort all but ensures that Castro will have a harder time getting through the eventual vetting process.

And it has also functioned to bring other vice presidential contenders to the public eye. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper recently announced he has an autobiography coming out around the time the vice presidential conversation may be heating up, and many Clinton loyalists are enamored of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, widely considered the front-runner for the post.

But the fact remains that Clinton’s team views courting the Hispanic vote as a top priority as she looks to replicate Obama’s electoral success with minorities. Clinton’s decision to unveil her immigration policy in Nevada was no mere happenstance, and when she returns to the state later this month she will speak at conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Even so, Castro’s ethnic background may not be as effective in appealing to Hispanic voters as some believe. As one Clinton ally put it: “Tim Kaine speaks Spanish much better than Julián Castro does.”

 
Tim, everyone knows Castro will be her VP. There was like one hispanic, Democratic, nationally known leader, he was it (and he was a mayor). He was called up from on high like a year and a half ago to give him "experience" on the federal level. Castro is a done deal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people think Castro is a slam dunk obvious choice. I'm not so sure. If Rubio is on the GOP ticket, and if the polls show he's contending in Florida, then that might force Hillary's hand to take Castro. But otherwise she has a few different people to ponder. If I were her I'd take a long look at Corey Booker.

 
I know the Fulton Fish Market moved a few years ago but I must have missed when they moved Wall Street to Brooklyn.

-QG

 
I know the Fulton Fish Market moved a few years ago but I must have missed when they moved Wall Street to Brooklyn.

-QG
It's still "NYC" to most people. And the New York City skyline will be behind Hillary when she speaks, if you don't think that raises connotations, fine. It was an open question.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Haven't waded into that mess, but lengthening voting periods and DMV hours would seem to assuage my doubts about voter ids.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Haven't waded into that mess, but lengthening voting periods and DMV hours would seem to assuage my doubts about voter ids.
Nor have I. Those are special threads for sure. They still need to work on automation for voting IMO, but I doubt any of the prospective "leaders" of this country will go that far.

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Haven't waded into that mess, but lengthening voting periods and DMV hours would seem to assuage my doubts about voter ids.
Nor have I. Those are special threads for sure. They still need to work on automation for voting IMO, but I doubt any of the prospective "leaders" of this country will go that far.
Of course the issue with automation or more technology in voting is more opportunities for lapse security... :)

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
She has made specific proposals with regard to illegal immigration (trust me, you won't like it ;) ) , campaign finance reform, and police cameras.

 
wdcrob said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Not tracking you here. Why would Republicans change their tune based on a Hillary Clinton proposal? Why would they pay any attention to it at all?
Republicans wouldn't. Dems probably won't either and they were the most vocal in those threads about how this would be a waste of money to "fix a problem that doesn't exist". :shrug:

 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Haven't waded into that mess, but lengthening voting periods and DMV hours would seem to assuage my doubts about voter ids.
Nor have I. Those are special threads for sure. They still need to work on automation for voting IMO, but I doubt any of the prospective "leaders" of this country will go that far.
Of course the issue with automation or more technology in voting is more opportunities for lapse security... :)
Yeah, it's terrifying isn't it? Because the current voting system is completely secure :)

 
wdcrob said:
wdcrob said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.
At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.
The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with :hophead: about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.
Not tracking you here. Why would Republicans change their tune based on a Hillary Clinton proposal? Why would they pay any attention to it at all?
Republicans wouldn't. Dems probably won't either and they were the most vocal in those threads about how this would be a waste of money to "fix a problem that doesn't exist". :shrug:
Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.
Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top