What's new
By:
Filters

Hillary Going For Broke

B

babe

Well-Known Member
The Republican National Committee is objecting to some TV programs focused on projecting Hillary as presidential. I'm old enough to remember the PBS special on the Cintons about two or three years before Bill Clinton announced his candidacy. "Free" government-subsidized slush is always there for the next wave of compliant ambitious political personalities. I compare these "personalities" right up there with the "talking heads" news personalities. You pay the price, you get the job. . . . for a while. . . .

What is really laughable in the current flap about the Hillary slush production is that the RNC has the gall to object. Actually, the smart thing to do is just let Hillary and the "mainstream" Democratic media work up the case all they want. I mean, there's nothing I'd like better than seeing the Democratic Party making Hillary their next presidential candidate.

Hillary is the Wicked Witch From Wellesly. While there, she wrote a 92-page "thesis", which was given an "A" grade, on the merits of Saul Alinsky's political theories. The amazing thing is, knowing all that, she still got beat by a devoted acolyte of Saul Alinsky in the 2008 Democratic primaries. But here is a literal gold mine of insight into the political thinking and ambitions of Hillary as a college chick. Do we really want sociopaths with global ambitions being our Presidents???/

I mean political patsies who actually have no human compassion and no conscience whatsoever, when there is a politcal goal of personal relevance in their mental crosshairs???? People who can just give the order to do nothing when Americans under their command are in the line of fire, refuse to allow nearby resources to come to their aid, and then construct a determined system of lies about it? This kind of personality who is actually beyond the reach of any kind of accountability to the American people???

What I see with Hillary going forward is the end of "DNC" as well as major "mainstream media" credibility with Americans. Hillary---- and the DNC and the media---going for broke.

The thesis offered a critique of Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."[1]
In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.[1]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

A college chick adoring Saul Alinsky and believing she's even smarter and better. Great.
 
I don't know why but this is the first thing that came to mind as I read this and the wikipedia article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNKaKVTB2FI
 
LogGrad98 said:
I don't know why but this is the first thing that came to mind as I read this and the wikipedia article.
Click to expand...

It might not take a village to produce a Hillary, after all.

There was movie made almost twenty years ago about Hillary in High School. It's too raunchy for me but I do have the DVD. I saw a TV cut without most of the raunch once very late at night, and I practically died laughing, though. It's Election. It clearly shows the mindset that will produce a Hillary, and like I insinuated above, it's nothing to do with the "village", just a pure sociopath in all her glory, hell bent on winning. I'm sure no village would claim this type of chick. . . . well. . . . uuhhhhmmmm. . . . . once they fully understand what she's all about. Reese Witherspoon does an awesome "Hillary".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXynyyDNz-4
 
What is really laughable in the current flap about the Hillary slush production is that the RNC has the gall to object. Actually, the smart thing to do is just let Hillary and the "mainstream" Democratic media work up the case all they want. I mean, there's nothing I'd like better than seeing the Democratic Party making Hillary their next presidential candidate
Click to expand...

Agree on that. About 45% of the general electorate would never vote for Hillary under any circumstance. The only chance she has is if the republicans march out another zero like Romney. Even still that would be an uphill climb after 8 years of democratic rule.

Although bringing up Hillary's college days is a meaningless exercise. Hillary the college student never would have voted for Hillary the senator and probably would protested against Hillary the Secretary of State as a war criminal.
 
Why does the right assume that Hillary is going to be the next opponent? Is it wishful thinking?

I think even she would acknowledge that she's 8 years past her prime. I'm guessing that the Demos have someone else in mind. As the Demos have proven, they don't need a woman to own their vote. Repubs haven't done anything to endear themselves to anyone other than old white evangelicals. And the craziness will continue as jokes like Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and Ted Cruz will roll in the mud with Chris Christie (the only real electable candidate).

By the time the GOP is through dirtying itself, the Demos won't even need to have a real candidate to win.
 
babe said:
The Republican National Committee is objecting to some TV programs focused on projecting Hillary as presidential. I'm old enough to remember the PBS special on the Cintons about two or three years before Bill Clinton announced his candidacy. "Free" government-subsidized slush is always there for the next wave of compliant ambitious political personalities. I compare these "personalities" right up there with the "talking heads" news personalities. You pay the price, you get the job. . . . for a while. . . .

What is really laughable in the current flap about the Hillary slush production is that the RNC has the gall to object. Actually, the smart thing to do is just let Hillary and the "mainstream" Democratic media work up the case all they want. I mean, there's nothing I'd like better than seeing the Democratic Party making Hillary their next presidential candidate.

Hillary is the Wicked Witch From Wellesly. While there, she wrote a 92-page "thesis", which was given an "A" grade, on the merits of Saul Alinsky's political theories. The amazing thing is, knowing all that, she still got beat by a devoted acolyte of Saul Alinsky in the 2008 Democratic primaries. But here is a literal gold mine of insight into the political thinking and ambitions of Hillary as a college chick. Do we really want sociopaths with global ambitions being our Presidents???/

I mean political patsies who actually have no human compassion and no conscience whatsoever, when there is a politcal goal of personal relevance in their mental crosshairs???? People who can just give the order to do nothing when Americans under their command are in the line of fire, refuse to allow nearby resources to come to their aid, and then construct a determined system of lies about it? This kind of personality who is actually beyond the reach of any kind of accountability to the American people???

What I see with Hillary going forward is the end of "DNC" as well as major "mainstream media" credibility with Americans. Hillary---- and the DNC and the media---going for broke.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

A college chick adoring Saul Alinsky and believing she's even smarter and better. Great.
Click to expand...

So, now that the GOP is all but done, you're predicting the death of the DNC as well?

So what political parties are going to take over?
 
ElRoach0 said:
So, now that the GOP is all but done, you're predicting the death of the DNC as well?

So what political parties are going to take over?
Click to expand...

Well, I ran once as a "Constitutional Party" candidate. I got one news blip on a response to a a question on GLBT issues by saying our laws really do need to treat all people the same, and limit the use of government by ideologues and moral crusaders as well as corporate and cartel interests. . . . .

But frankly, I was concerned about the dull hammerheads with their mantras about idealized "patriots" and American nationalism as well. . . .

I hated that Ron Paul, and Rand Paul, were willing to play Republican and take their little booth to the sideshow alley during the big time, as well. Getting the US out of UN/globalist jackbooted thug operations worldwide. . . . outta Afghanistan, Iraq, and off the radar over Iran would be a huge plus. "Alliance with none, commerce with all", and Jeffersonian pragmatism about what's actually good for people worldwide could re-make us as an actual plus for human rights. Jefferson had a hard time rationalizing the Louisiana Purchase because it conflicted with his ideals on limited government. . . . and it did result in an America that did one day destroy the Plains Indians by reprehensible atrocities on the Federal level. . . . but it was that political decision of his which actually set the New England Federalists back fifty years before they could make their run on owning the government.

I've been listening to an irate egghead, former Supreme Court clerk I think. . . lawyer-type thinker. . . . whose rhetoric is really just too angry. . . . but I find his ideas about "Freedom Amendments" that would strengthen the barriers against the extremes of government top-down operations to be actually refreshing. A lot of conservatives are dead-set against any "Constitutional Convention" in modern times because they fear what "progressives" could do with that. . . . but our founders were the progressives of their day, and there were a lot of concerns about what they might do, too. Jefferson certainly didn't have approval from the religious conservatives of his day.

Mark Levin is smart, and his reading of the Article Five of the Constitution gives him the hope that state legislators could rise once again to assert national power by a united front movement, achieving the goal of 38/50 states ratifying specific measures in their state legislatures. . . . which would not require either a Presidential or Supreme Court or Washington congressional action. . . . is a ray of hope. And the best thing about it is that that 3/4 of states' ratification is a strong enough deterrent to real craziness. . . . I hope.

It would be quite an accomplishment in the plus column to make both of our old parties defunct relics of a cartelist past and for a lot of more independent folks to actually become political candidates. I'd like to rally this type around an "American Independent" party flag. Being owned by big-time contributors should be the kiss of death, politically, in America.
 
ElRoach0 said:
So, now that the GOP is all but done, you're predicting the death of the DNC as well?

So what political parties are going to take over?
Click to expand...

This country would benefit from a wide political spectrum. More truly viable parties are far better than 2 narrow-viewed parties. The polarization is insane. We have hashed and re-hashed all this here many times over the years. I just have a really hard time supporting either democrats or republicans, and largely because they both have the same mind-set: "If you're one of us, you are the Holiest of Holies. Against us, you are lower than Satan. Everything we say it right, good, true, best, the epitome of intelligence, perfect in every way. Everything anyone else says is wrong, bad, false, stupid beyond all imagination, absolutely corrupt and moronic in every way." It gets so so so old. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle, not at the extreme right or left. Parties that offer middle-ground would only help us, make us stronger. Funny how often they fight against compromise on both sides when the middle ground is the best idea to begin with.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This country would benefit from a wide political spectrum. More truly viable parties are far better than 2 narrow-viewed parties. The polarization is insane. We have hashed and re-hashed all this here many times over the years. I just have a really hard time supporting either democrats or republicans, and largely because they both have the same mind-set: "If you're one of us, you are the Holiest of Holies. Against us, you are lower than Satan. Everything we say it right, good, true, best, the epitome of intelligence, perfect in every way. Everything anyone else says is wrong, bad, false, stupid beyond all imagination, absolutely corrupt and moronic in every way." It gets so so so old. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle, not at the extreme right or left. Parties that offer middle-ground would only help us, make us stronger. Funny how often they fight against compromise on both sides when the middle ground is the best idea to begin with.
Click to expand...

I want you to know that I support this. We need a vast and varied set of groups-- not two that make people get in line. It's just so hard for me to see happening.
 
I think IRV is a good idea. We also need to abolish the electoral college, imo. If you think about it, if literally no one in america voted except 1 californian and every single eligible voter in Utah, and the californian's single vote went to the democratic candidate and every single vote in utah went to the republican, the democrat would win. We have the tech to easily get rid of it. I know the political machine relies heavily on it to avoid the need to campaign in all states so they can pay places like Utah a token visit, but it is time this pre-industrial-revolution holdover goes down.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think IRV is a good idea. We also need to abolish the electoral college, imo. If you think about it, if literally no one in america voted except 1 californian and every single eligible voter in Utah, and the californian's single vote went to the democratic candidate and every single vote in utah went to the republican, the democrat would win. We have the tech to easily get rid of it. I know the political machine relies heavily on it to avoid the need to campaign in all states so they can pay places like Utah a token visit, but it is time this pre-industrial-revolution holdover goes down.
Click to expand...

I think we need to abolish winner take all states, but the electoral college is a good thing to have in times of mass hysteria. It is the one check on the people voting in tyranny. If all states followed maines exa,ple of splitting their votes it would work out better.
 
I had an idea for the presidency. First, change the term to six years, with no option for re-election. Second, the winner of the presidential election is the president, the runner up is the VP. The term change will give the president a finite time frame to get something done. He can spend the first year kissing special interest ***, as they do now, and the last year campaigning for the next candidate, as they do now, but have an actual 4 years in between to get something done. The runner up part is to force partisan politics. You could also have a separate election for vice president, completely separate from the president. They could even overlap terms, say the VP elections are in the middle year of the term of the president. Shake things up a bit.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I had an idea for the presidency. First, change the term to six years, with no option for re-election. Second, the winner of the presidential election is the president, the runner up is the VP. The term change will give the president a finite time frame to get something done. He can spend the first year kissing special interest ***, as they do now, and the last year campaigning for the next candidate, as they do now, but have an actual 4 years in between to get something done. The runner up part is to force partisan politics. You could also have a separate election for vice president, completely separate from the president. They could even overlap terms, say the VP elections are in the middle year of the term of the president. Shake things up a bit.
Click to expand...

We actually did our first few presidential elections this way. It didn't impede partisanship, it simply put it in the white house. They realized I think that assassinations would be more likely if they kept it this way.
 
heyhey said:
We actually did our first few presidential elections this way. It didn't impede partisanship, it simply put it in the white house. They realized I think that assassinations would be more likely if they kept it this way.
Click to expand...

Hey at least that would be more interesting than what we have now.
 
I agree that the electoral college needs to go. As for the whole tyranny arguement agaisnt it. I do not see that as any more likely than when we have now. Abolishing it and going to popular vote is the only way you truly make every vote count. That way a Republican in Massachusets and a Democrat in Utah have a reason to vote for president. It actually means something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top