HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Why does Hillary oppose a...

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:19 PM

Why does Hillary oppose a $15 federal minimum wage?

Serious question.

Bernie (and Martin O'Malley) supports a $15 federal minimum wage.

If Hillary's opposition is out of pragmatism, under the notion that congressional Republicans would never support a $15 minimum wage, well, they won't agree to a $12 federal minumum wage either, yet she says she does support a $12 minimum wage.

And on a related subject--
In negotiating, when you want a higher price than the other party wants, you should always start from above where you really want to end up so that you have room to negotiate. So does Hillary really only want a $12 federal min wage, or is that just her starting-above point, with an aim to ultimately achieve something actually even lower?

75 replies, 3042 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 75 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why does Hillary oppose a $15 federal minimum wage? (Original post)
TheDormouse Mar 2016 OP
seaotter Mar 2016 #1
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #20
Armstead Mar 2016 #30
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #33
Armstead Mar 2016 #37
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #39
kristopher Mar 2016 #63
Armstead Mar 2016 #38
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #43
Armstead Mar 2016 #53
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #58
Armstead Mar 2016 #61
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #62
kristopher Mar 2016 #65
kristopher Mar 2016 #64
corbettkroehler Mar 2016 #50
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #70
Ferd Berfel Mar 2016 #40
reformist2 Mar 2016 #74
2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #2
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #75
Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #3
thesquanderer Mar 2016 #67
Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #71
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #4
randome Mar 2016 #5
Armstead Mar 2016 #34
randome Mar 2016 #48
Armstead Mar 2016 #55
thereismore Mar 2016 #6
yardwork Mar 2016 #14
thereismore Mar 2016 #29
John Poet Mar 2016 #7
Post removed Mar 2016 #8
Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #9
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #12
Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #19
-none Mar 2016 #10
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #15
-none Mar 2016 #72
yardwork Mar 2016 #11
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #16
yardwork Mar 2016 #22
SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2016 #24
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #26
Luminous Animal Mar 2016 #44
madokie Mar 2016 #56
Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #46
yardwork Mar 2016 #66
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #13
dogman Mar 2016 #17
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #18
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #21
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #23
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #28
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #31
Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #45
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #47
Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #49
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #51
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #52
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #54
elehhhhna Mar 2016 #25
datguy_6 Mar 2016 #27
TheFarseer Mar 2016 #32
mmonk Mar 2016 #35
Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #36
Warren Stupidity Mar 2016 #41
Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #59
Name removed Mar 2016 #42
WDIM Mar 2016 #57
demwing Mar 2016 #60
Matariki Mar 2016 #68
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #69
delrem Mar 2016 #73

Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:20 PM

1. Her corporate masters have instructed her so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaotter (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:36 PM

20. Why isnt Bernie for $20 bucks an hour?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:50 PM

30. Bernie is for $15...Clinton is not. That is the question

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:51 PM

33. Why not $16/hr?

 

And she has stated numerous times that she is for $15/hr in high COL areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:54 PM

37. You're deflecting again

 

Might as well ask why not $100 an hour. That's a silly game.

But since you asked, $15 is what advocates for a living wage have calculated as the MINIMUM WAGE which is the bare minimum to cover the basics.

Now why is Clinton against it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:57 PM

39. Depends on where you live.

 

Im not deflecting, Im hoping you answer the question so I can move on to deeper points, like downward pressure on redistributive income that negatively effects the middle class and poor. Forget it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:23 PM

63. Please, proceed. That's a conversation worth having.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:55 PM

38. If the states allow it. That's a whole different kettle of fish

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #38)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:59 PM

43. Exactly. States can go as high as they want.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Fed only sets the bottom. What if a state like Alabama finds that their small businesses cant absorb $15/hr and they start closing up shop. Who does that hurt, the rich or the middle class employees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:07 PM

53. But the point is the Feds set the bottom

 

Even in a low cost of living area, $15 is still a shitty wage and hard to live on.

And -- this is NOT an anti-business statement -- but businesss have to live within their means as do individuals. In otehr words, if a business cannot afford 5 people at $15 an hour, perhaps they should stick with four at $15 (at least) and manage themselves smartly until they grow to afford another employee.....They have to do that with all their expenses. If they can't afford to be in a top notch storefront for $3000 a month, they accept that they may have to go to a $1000 less desirable one until they can afford to move up.

I can't go to the auto dealer and say "Gee I really want this BMW but I can only afford the Honda Civic. Can I pay you the price of the Honda, but get the BMW instead."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #53)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:11 PM

58. So youre willing to sacrifice millions of jobs...

 

Say 1 of every 5 like you stated, so others could get $3/hr more? Its not like jobs in rural America are in abundance. I would reckon the employee would rather make $12/hr + health benefits than be on unemployment and uninsured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:17 PM

61. No...But business has come to think the cost of labor is flexible but otehr costs are not

 

And I am not averse to programs or certain built in flexibility to accommodate particular situations.

But since about 1980 and "supply side economics" business has been put into an "entitled" position where the normal laws of living within your means are not supposed to apply. They claim to be "job creators" to get breaks from the rules, while slashing jobs.

Business should obviously be in a position to make money. But the peopel who work for business are entitled to be paid enough to live a decent life too.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #61)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:20 PM

62. Note: I said small businesses, which employ the majority of our workforce.

 

Most small biz owners make around 75k a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:27 PM

65. You speculated in one post and then act as if the speculation is true in the next.

Prove your premise, Governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:25 PM

64. What if a frog had wings?

That kind of totally unsubstantiated "what if" isn't even worth a response. It's a make work question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:04 PM

50. He Answered That Last Year On Bloomberg

He's not set on a specific number except that $15 is the right compromise between fighting poverty and the possibility of passing Congress relatively soon once he's in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:42 PM

70. Deflect! Deflect! Deflect!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaotter (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:58 PM

40. Exactly

No, we can't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaotter (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:08 PM

74. I love it when the first response nails it on the head! LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:21 PM

2. Her "friends " oppose it.

 

And that is who she ultimately works for. Plus I think she actually gets off on keeping the poor, poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 2, 2016, 12:21 AM

75. well, I think she honestly wants to help the poor, but

she seems to align more with the (small and large) business owners than with the workers/employees and the people who would one day like to be workers.

I think the idea that she gets off on keeping the poor, poor is just crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:22 PM

3. Answer me this: Why is a $15/hour wage in 2012 not a $16/hour wage in 2016?

$16 in 2016!

pass it on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kip Humphrey (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:36 PM

67. I believe the proposal is for $15 by 2020 or thereabouts (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #67)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:44 PM

71. that is the political proposal but is not what the movement was advocating in the streets in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:22 PM

4. Because she's a PINO, Progressive In Name Only.

 

And that only on selective days too, most likely to end pretty soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

5. I doubt she opposes it. I think she's trying to 'slide this under the door' for the GOP.

 

There will be no increase in the minimum wage if all we're willing to talk about is $15. (Which is still not enough, IMO.) But maybe she can peel off some GOP votes with a graduated increase starting at $12.

That's the thinking on this, I believe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:51 PM

34. That represents the time-honored "Meet the GOP at 75% to start negotiating" strategy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:03 PM

48. Unless she's CERTAIN the GOP won't go for more than $12.

 

"Aim high" -I get that. It doesn't always work that way, though. Whatever else she is, Clinton understands politics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:09 PM

55. I'm certain, given their druthers, most GOP politicians prefer to repeal it altogether

 

But you don't start the negotiation with "Tell you what, let's just agree to keep a minimum wage."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

6. It's a good question. Why doesn't she just lie and says she supports it now like she does with every

other issue? I truly don't know. The campaign isn't over yet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:34 PM

14. Maybe she doesn't lie as much as you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:49 PM

29. Maybe she does have some scrupules left over. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

7. Because her corporate backers oppose ANY increase,

 

she's trying to "split the difference" between the two.

That might be another sort of "triangulation", I'm not sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:30 PM

9. She answered the question about a thousand times. Have you made any attempt to answer your question?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:33 PM

12. in the debates or town hall I saw, she didn't directly explain why

instead she said that she supports a $12 federal and she supports allowing states or local areas to go even higher. She didn't say why she opposes $15 as the federal minimum.

Please share links if you have them for the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:36 PM

19. she did not answer the question

 

She just gave a position not an answer. Feel free to post the actual answer of why she opposes it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:32 PM

10. Because she doesn't need it.

She already makes much more than that. Most of the people that do need it, won't vote for her anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:34 PM

15. most who need it won't vote for her? Think you're wrong on that nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 07:11 PM

72. I said nothing about any of her supporters.

I was talking about Hillary alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:33 PM

11. You answered your own question.

Congress might agree to $12. No way would $15 pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:35 PM

16. did you read the second part of my question in the OP? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:38 PM

22. Yes, and I disagree with what you said.

I am a negotiator - a successful one - and the way to get what you want is NOT to throw down some arbitrarily higher number. That just annoys the other party.

Negotiating with Republucans is complex. The Clintons are pretty good at it. She's being strategic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:42 PM

24. arbitrarily higher number

 

WTF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:47 PM

26. She's being strategic like Obama was strategic? Giving in before starting? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:00 PM

44. But $15 an hour is not arbitrary. It is actually being implemented in several cities and towns in

the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:10 PM

56. "The Clintons are pretty good at it"

Damn I'm glad I didn't have a mouth full when I read that. LOL

In other words what you're saying to us is all the shit that came down our way during the big dogs two terms was what they wanted for us. Well in that case fuck them and the lies they rode in on. Bill and Hill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:01 PM

46. You don't even believe that.

 

This congress would agree to abolish the min.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:40 PM

66. So why are you surprised that Clinton isn't promising $15?

You know how unlikely it is to pass this Congress, or the next, or the one after it until maybe 2021. Maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:34 PM

13. Is that what she got paid for her performances on Wall Street?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:35 PM

17. Goldman Sachs

Wonder if this was discussed in her speeches?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:35 PM

18. That's the current Senate bill.

 

She is for $15/hr in higher cost of living areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:37 PM

21. but why not in ALL areas -- that's the point of a federal minimum nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:40 PM

23. Because Dubuque Iowa doesnt get the same foot traffic as Manhattan NY.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:48 PM

28. So you're saying she feels $12/hr is a living wage in Dubuque nt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:51 PM

31. Is Bernie saying $15/hr is a living wage in Manhattan?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:00 PM

45. No he is agreeing that should be the national floor

 

from which the states and municipalities should be setting their local regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #45)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:02 PM

47. Right, but Manhattan is different from Dubuque Iowa.

 

Nothing is stopping states from going higher as they wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:03 PM

49. Well let's just abolish the fed min, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:06 PM

51. Huh???

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:07 PM

52. People making min in Manhattan mostly live in Brooklyn or the Bronx & commute

and for those areas, yes, I think Bernie would say that a $15 min approaches a bare minimum livable wage. Especially if you are trying to get the other parts of his agenda enacted (free college tuition, single-payer health care with elimination of for-profit health insurance middle-men, etc) Even NY Gov Cuomo (not exactly super progressive) supports $15 min wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #52)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:08 PM

54. Cool. I support a $15/hr min wage here in NY as well. Again,

 

States are free to go as high as they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:46 PM

25. there are 2 phrases that summarize hrc

 

Status quo and quid pro quo. They pretty much answer any questions about hrh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:48 PM

27. Because its bad for corporate America's earnings...

 

And they fund her campaign, Super PAC and the Clinton Global Initiative...follow the money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:51 PM

32. Maybe

Because it would be counterproductive as it would spur automation and offspring. Get used to the drive thru guy being someone in the Philippines and self checkout everywhere. I'm for Bernie but I don't agree with him on every issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:52 PM

35. She is "pragmatic" and "reasonable" and will get things done

in a "bipartisan" manner with right wing lunatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:53 PM

36. Here's why

But what is too low and what is too high? Sanders and O’Malley both support the goal of a $15 an hour minimum wage that is being pushed by groups like Fight for $15 and put into practice in cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. “You have no disposable income when you make 10, 12 bucks an hour,” Sanders argued on Saturday night. “When we put money into the hands of working people, they’re going to go out and buy goods, they’re going to buy services and they’re going to create jobs in doing that.”

But that only works if people remain employed. That’s where Krueger* comes back in. Last month, he published an op-ed in the New York Times saying an increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour could “risk undesirable and unintended consequences.” The reason? There is, Krueger said, “no international comparison” for an increase of that magnitude. We would be sailing into the unknown. “Although some high-wage cities and states could probably absorb a $15 an hour minimum wage with little or no job loss, it is far from clear the same could be said for every state, city and town in the United States,” he added.


*Krueger is the Princeton economist whose research is often used to show that an increase in minimum wage does not necessarily result in job loss. He has also, however, cautioned against a raise as high as up to $15, for the reasons above.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_was_right_on_minimum_wage_and_her_rivals_were_wrong.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:59 PM

41. There is zero evidence that increasing the min has ever

 

significantly impacted employment. 15 is not over some non-linear tipping point that would cause a cascade of joblessness that 12 would not cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:15 PM

59. And yet, the same guy who actually did the research

that proves the point you're making about an increase in the minimum wage does not increase joblessness, also cautioned that this might no longer hold if the MW is raised too high, at least in some areas in the country. Some HCOL cities can absorb that, other areas not necessarily.

The point is that Hillary supports a more staggered approach instead of a single sum (i.e., $15 in some areas, $12 in others), and that she does have reason to do so that has nothing to do with her being supposedly "bribed by Wall Street."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:11 PM

57. The people who donate to her foundation oppose it.

To keep doing the same thing and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. Clintons are just more of the same status quo political theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:15 PM

60. She probably doesn't

 

But peeling a layer off the $15 figure makes her look more pragmatic than Bernie in the race to the nomination

It's all about that race, 'bout that race, 'bout that race...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:40 PM

69. Because she is a pragmatic progressive. Whatever the hell that is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:08 PM

73. Because it's what she DOES. Every fucking time.

Now go out and vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread