Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
FrenchieCat
FrenchieCat's Journal
FrenchieCat's Journal
January 31, 2016
The GOP has always been deathly afraid, that one day, too many Americans would realize without a doubt, that this country does exponentially better under Democratic Party rule. In contrast, Republicans appear to only excel at stealing the American peoples' money and funneling it to their rich cronies, via tax cuts, corporate subsidies, pork, defense and war spending. Their special talent is giving to the wealthy more than they can spend, while cutting programs set aside to assist the poorest Americans.
Case in point; the most loved and effective Presidents in the last part of the 20th Century were Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton and now, Obama (21st Century once the history is written); all Democrats.
Unfortunately, the only Republican Presidents worth noting are Eisenhower (who would be a Democrat in this era, no doubt), and Reagan (after much historical rehabilitation).
I’m sure you notice the difference in the numbers.
So what does this have to do specifically with the Clintons?
The Republican Hate & Smear Machine have been trying to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 24+ years now, and as hard as they have tried, today, Republicans are still sweating.
It all began with the 1992 election which foiled the GOP’s grand master plan, and subtracted four years of theft they had already counted. Unfortunately, Bush Sr. (Reagan’s heir) had proven inept and brought about a premature recession. After one short term, a young and charming Bill Clinton unexpectedly defeated their War President Bush, who was forced to raise taxes due to his war. So, a three way race abruptly ended twelve years of Republican administrations. We must remember that after Nixon’s Watergate, Republicans weren’t quite sure they would ever see twelve straight years in the White House, and at some point had gotten very comfortable that the twelve would turn into sixteen years. Well that didn’t happen.
The GOP establishment's hate for Bill Clinton, and the start of the constant smearing started when Bill Clinton won his first Presidential election and succeeded in ending the 12 year Republican White House reign, but also changed the record held by Republicans prior to Clinton’s election; 20 years of holding down the Presidency vs. the Democrats’ 4 years (Pres. Jimmy Carter). He won by winning over what were then called Reagan Democrats who had supported Bush Sr. in the previous election, but switched their support to Clinton, who was moderate enough for them to pull the lever for, in contrast to Populist Ross Perot who was viewed as an unknown quantity and had showed signs of possible instability. He won by pointing to his Moderate record as Arkansas Governor, but in so doing, did alienate some in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
The rage and extreme jealousy the GOP projected due to Bill Clinton’s victory and Republican’s failure to steal four years of additional billions soon manifested itself into one simple goal;discredit the new charming President who possessed the gift of oratory, at all cost. They would make him feel the pain, and get him out of office after his first term. After all, if it had happened to President Carter and George H. Bush, it could happen to Bill Clinton, they figured.
Almost immediately, the scandals search started. Upon entering office, with a modest majority in both houses, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August of that year, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years (Paraphrased per Wikipedia/Bill Clinton).
President Clinton introduced to Congress his intentions to revamp the country’s healthcare plan on September 22, 1993 (9 months into office). The aim was to achieve universal coverage through a national health care plan. President Bill Clinton had made this the top priority on his agenda, and asked his very able wife, Hillary Clinton, to head the task force to put it all together. Until then, it had been unheard of, with the notable exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, for a wife of a President to insert herself into serious policy matters. The entire endeavor was eventually doomed by the well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry.
Clinton also helped pass the Brady Bill in November of 1993, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. He also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to subsidize low-income workers.
There were many accomplishment during Clinton’s first two years in office, but in the mid-term elections of 1994, less than two years into his first term, President Clinton lost his majorities in both the House and the Senate . He never regained majorities. In essence, he was made a lame duck for six years of his eight years in office.
In 1996, Bill Clinton, to the dismay of the Republicans and their scandal searching, won a 2nd term as President running against the much older Senator Dole, and in so doing, saved the nation from 100% Republican rule. His success was due to a booming Internet economy, and the tax increases he had imposed on the very rich filled the Government coffers. He left office with a 20 Billion surplus.
During Clinton's tenure, as mentioned, there were many failed Republican attempts at smearing the President, but most never totally quite hit their mark until 1996. At such time, their golden opportunity finally appeared in the form of a young Intern, who was discovered of having had an affair with the President. A scandal ensued of enormous proportion, and in 1998, the President was impeached by the House for lying under oath about the affair, but after much drama, in 1999, he was acquitted by the Senate. The vote was 50 Not Guilty, 50 Guilty on the obstruction of justice charge, and 55 Not Guilty, 45 Guilty on a perjury charge. The Republicans had failed again, as the vote tally did not meet the Constitutional two-thirds majority rule to convict and remove him. The voting was pretty much along party lines. None of the Democrats voted guilty, and a few Republicans went along.
The American people were dismayed of the affair, but they were even more dismayed by Congress’ response to it. That's why Democrats who actually know history understand that the Clintons saved our beacon for 8 years straight.
And what about Hillary? She can win, and the Republicans know that damn well!
I can't wait to see her sitting in the Oval office,
while the Republicans establishment shit all over themselves and their heads explode!
Not only a Democrat,
not only a Woman,
but a Clinton!
<----Republican Establishment
Why the GOP Establishment hate Democrats, and specifically the Clintons: History Refresher
why the Republicans Party Hate the Democratic Party so muchThe GOP has always been deathly afraid, that one day, too many Americans would realize without a doubt, that this country does exponentially better under Democratic Party rule. In contrast, Republicans appear to only excel at stealing the American peoples' money and funneling it to their rich cronies, via tax cuts, corporate subsidies, pork, defense and war spending. Their special talent is giving to the wealthy more than they can spend, while cutting programs set aside to assist the poorest Americans.
Case in point; the most loved and effective Presidents in the last part of the 20th Century were Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton and now, Obama (21st Century once the history is written); all Democrats.
Unfortunately, the only Republican Presidents worth noting are Eisenhower (who would be a Democrat in this era, no doubt), and Reagan (after much historical rehabilitation).
I’m sure you notice the difference in the numbers.
So what does this have to do specifically with the Clintons?
The Republican Hate & Smear Machine have been trying to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 24+ years now, and as hard as they have tried, today, Republicans are still sweating.
It all began with the 1992 election which foiled the GOP’s grand master plan, and subtracted four years of theft they had already counted. Unfortunately, Bush Sr. (Reagan’s heir) had proven inept and brought about a premature recession. After one short term, a young and charming Bill Clinton unexpectedly defeated their War President Bush, who was forced to raise taxes due to his war. So, a three way race abruptly ended twelve years of Republican administrations. We must remember that after Nixon’s Watergate, Republicans weren’t quite sure they would ever see twelve straight years in the White House, and at some point had gotten very comfortable that the twelve would turn into sixteen years. Well that didn’t happen.
The GOP establishment's hate for Bill Clinton, and the start of the constant smearing started when Bill Clinton won his first Presidential election and succeeded in ending the 12 year Republican White House reign, but also changed the record held by Republicans prior to Clinton’s election; 20 years of holding down the Presidency vs. the Democrats’ 4 years (Pres. Jimmy Carter). He won by winning over what were then called Reagan Democrats who had supported Bush Sr. in the previous election, but switched their support to Clinton, who was moderate enough for them to pull the lever for, in contrast to Populist Ross Perot who was viewed as an unknown quantity and had showed signs of possible instability. He won by pointing to his Moderate record as Arkansas Governor, but in so doing, did alienate some in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
The rage and extreme jealousy the GOP projected due to Bill Clinton’s victory and Republican’s failure to steal four years of additional billions soon manifested itself into one simple goal;discredit the new charming President who possessed the gift of oratory, at all cost. They would make him feel the pain, and get him out of office after his first term. After all, if it had happened to President Carter and George H. Bush, it could happen to Bill Clinton, they figured.
Almost immediately, the scandals search started. Upon entering office, with a modest majority in both houses, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August of that year, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years (Paraphrased per Wikipedia/Bill Clinton).
President Clinton introduced to Congress his intentions to revamp the country’s healthcare plan on September 22, 1993 (9 months into office). The aim was to achieve universal coverage through a national health care plan. President Bill Clinton had made this the top priority on his agenda, and asked his very able wife, Hillary Clinton, to head the task force to put it all together. Until then, it had been unheard of, with the notable exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, for a wife of a President to insert herself into serious policy matters. The entire endeavor was eventually doomed by the well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry.
Clinton also helped pass the Brady Bill in November of 1993, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. He also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit to subsidize low-income workers.
There were many accomplishment during Clinton’s first two years in office, but in the mid-term elections of 1994, less than two years into his first term, President Clinton lost his majorities in both the House and the Senate . He never regained majorities. In essence, he was made a lame duck for six years of his eight years in office.
In 1996, Bill Clinton, to the dismay of the Republicans and their scandal searching, won a 2nd term as President running against the much older Senator Dole, and in so doing, saved the nation from 100% Republican rule. His success was due to a booming Internet economy, and the tax increases he had imposed on the very rich filled the Government coffers. He left office with a 20 Billion surplus.
During Clinton's tenure, as mentioned, there were many failed Republican attempts at smearing the President, but most never totally quite hit their mark until 1996. At such time, their golden opportunity finally appeared in the form of a young Intern, who was discovered of having had an affair with the President. A scandal ensued of enormous proportion, and in 1998, the President was impeached by the House for lying under oath about the affair, but after much drama, in 1999, he was acquitted by the Senate. The vote was 50 Not Guilty, 50 Guilty on the obstruction of justice charge, and 55 Not Guilty, 45 Guilty on a perjury charge. The Republicans had failed again, as the vote tally did not meet the Constitutional two-thirds majority rule to convict and remove him. The voting was pretty much along party lines. None of the Democrats voted guilty, and a few Republicans went along.
The American people were dismayed of the affair, but they were even more dismayed by Congress’ response to it. That's why Democrats who actually know history understand that the Clintons saved our beacon for 8 years straight.
And what about Hillary? She can win, and the Republicans know that damn well!
I can't wait to see her sitting in the Oval office,
while the Republicans establishment shit all over themselves and their heads explode!
Not only a Democrat,
not only a Woman,
but a Clinton!
<----Republican Establishment
January 31, 2016
Those of us who believe that Donald Trump will be the eventual nominee are more than likely mistaken. Those of us who believe that the primary race is between The Donald and Cruz, I believe are also incorrect.
The way I see it, both of these men have been a distraction and a media shield for who will be the eventual nominee; Senator Marco Rubio.
If you haven’t noticed, Rubio has been in the middle of the pack all year. The review of his debates performances have been glowing, and although he has been polling 3rd in Iowa and New Hampshire for some time, the media has been oddly silent about him until very recently, while they discuss Trump and Cruz ad nauseas.
Rubio is the GOP establishment pick. He is the one that can bring in Latino Voters (so they think), excite enough of the Republican party youth, and win Florida (as he has already won statewide there).
He is a decent looking young guy; a mix between Rickie Ricardo and Frank Sinatra in appearance, has a cute family, a compelling life story, and can talk up an awfully good word salad (I've watched him on C-Span) that will leave many unclear without noticing. You will note how tough he's sounded on Foreign policy; the exact thing Republicans love to hear, as for them, that connotes strength. His only Tea Party failure is his noticeable participation on immigration policies, as he was 1 in the gang of 8 who attempted to fashion a bi-partisan somewhat reasonable policy. This may not play well in the primaries, but will play much better in the general election. Additionally, he is not another Bush aka Jeb.
The current strategy is to have him come in strong third in Iowa, and then, we will see him surging in New Hampshire, a state that dislikes Cruz, and although Trump is currently leading, the establishment will be working hard at bringing Trump down. I doubt Trump survives, as his intended use will have expired; to keep the country distracted during most of the pre-primaries.
After Iowa, some of the other losing establishment candidates will leave the race. More will quit after New Hampshire. This will consolidate the non-tea- party vote to Rubio, who polls show as 2nd or 3rd pick on most GOP voters' list.
If Rubio wins the primaries, he will most likely select former Ohio Governor John Kasich as his Vice President. That's why Kasich is even in the race. The Republicans need Ohio, and they need someone on the ticket that has not only won statewide there, is still liked by many, and almost sounds reasonable, especially after what has taken place during the Primaries…plus a la Biden, he will be more reassuring to Middle America quasi racists to have Kasich on the ticket, when there is a Cuban as the head of it. Please also note that Between Rubio and Kasich, the two have won almost all of the newspaper endorsements.
Rubio, they believe, is their Obama, and Kasich is their Biden.
The GOP Establishment does not believe that Republicans will vote for Hillary (that's why Rubio has to win, cause if Trump win, they just may), But they are worried about Women (who may stand in line for 7 hours to vote for the first woman Prez, including those single woman voters who have not bothered to vote as of yet), Minorities, and Middle of the road Independents (socially liberal, but fiscally conservative) who remember the 1990s as great economic years.
They also know for a fact that the country, in the majority, will not vote for a Green Party/Naderite/Democratic Socialist old guy screaming revolution from Vermont while demanding tax hikes, and another fight on health care, and free college (GOP will term that over and over again as the redistribution of wealth to give out free stuff and government controlled health care); not in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida (and some other states as well). They also know that any National Security "October Surprise" will be the end of Sanders for sure, as long as they can present a somewhat "reasonable" alternative. If they can run against Sanders, far as they are concerned, they will end up winning and achieving their long awaited wet dream; a GOP Trifecta! That's why the GOP is (not so) silently rooting for Bernie Sanders to win the Primaries.
That's my analysis backing up my prediction.
(updated 2/11/16 - My Prediction was incorrect, as Robot Rubio proved to be nothing more than a lightweight, as GOP candidates normally are, but it showed early with this one - I'll write another one of these when I have a better inkling! LOL)
(updated 2/24/16 -= My Prediction may still be correct, as Rubio has been rehabilitated, and now is "bad boy Rubio". He is their last chance! So we shall see)
Prediction: Who will win the Republican Primaries...it ain't Trump nor Cruz
I.e., who our Democratic Nominee will face in the general election.Those of us who believe that Donald Trump will be the eventual nominee are more than likely mistaken. Those of us who believe that the primary race is between The Donald and Cruz, I believe are also incorrect.
The way I see it, both of these men have been a distraction and a media shield for who will be the eventual nominee; Senator Marco Rubio.
If you haven’t noticed, Rubio has been in the middle of the pack all year. The review of his debates performances have been glowing, and although he has been polling 3rd in Iowa and New Hampshire for some time, the media has been oddly silent about him until very recently, while they discuss Trump and Cruz ad nauseas.
Rubio is the GOP establishment pick. He is the one that can bring in Latino Voters (so they think), excite enough of the Republican party youth, and win Florida (as he has already won statewide there).
He is a decent looking young guy; a mix between Rickie Ricardo and Frank Sinatra in appearance, has a cute family, a compelling life story, and can talk up an awfully good word salad (I've watched him on C-Span) that will leave many unclear without noticing. You will note how tough he's sounded on Foreign policy; the exact thing Republicans love to hear, as for them, that connotes strength. His only Tea Party failure is his noticeable participation on immigration policies, as he was 1 in the gang of 8 who attempted to fashion a bi-partisan somewhat reasonable policy. This may not play well in the primaries, but will play much better in the general election. Additionally, he is not another Bush aka Jeb.
The current strategy is to have him come in strong third in Iowa, and then, we will see him surging in New Hampshire, a state that dislikes Cruz, and although Trump is currently leading, the establishment will be working hard at bringing Trump down. I doubt Trump survives, as his intended use will have expired; to keep the country distracted during most of the pre-primaries.
After Iowa, some of the other losing establishment candidates will leave the race. More will quit after New Hampshire. This will consolidate the non-tea- party vote to Rubio, who polls show as 2nd or 3rd pick on most GOP voters' list.
If Rubio wins the primaries, he will most likely select former Ohio Governor John Kasich as his Vice President. That's why Kasich is even in the race. The Republicans need Ohio, and they need someone on the ticket that has not only won statewide there, is still liked by many, and almost sounds reasonable, especially after what has taken place during the Primaries…plus a la Biden, he will be more reassuring to Middle America quasi racists to have Kasich on the ticket, when there is a Cuban as the head of it. Please also note that Between Rubio and Kasich, the two have won almost all of the newspaper endorsements.
Rubio, they believe, is their Obama, and Kasich is their Biden.
The GOP Establishment does not believe that Republicans will vote for Hillary (that's why Rubio has to win, cause if Trump win, they just may), But they are worried about Women (who may stand in line for 7 hours to vote for the first woman Prez, including those single woman voters who have not bothered to vote as of yet), Minorities, and Middle of the road Independents (socially liberal, but fiscally conservative) who remember the 1990s as great economic years.
They also know for a fact that the country, in the majority, will not vote for a Green Party/Naderite/Democratic Socialist old guy screaming revolution from Vermont while demanding tax hikes, and another fight on health care, and free college (GOP will term that over and over again as the redistribution of wealth to give out free stuff and government controlled health care); not in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida (and some other states as well). They also know that any National Security "October Surprise" will be the end of Sanders for sure, as long as they can present a somewhat "reasonable" alternative. If they can run against Sanders, far as they are concerned, they will end up winning and achieving their long awaited wet dream; a GOP Trifecta! That's why the GOP is (not so) silently rooting for Bernie Sanders to win the Primaries.
That's my analysis backing up my prediction.
(updated 2/11/16 - My Prediction was incorrect, as Robot Rubio proved to be nothing more than a lightweight, as GOP candidates normally are, but it showed early with this one - I'll write another one of these when I have a better inkling! LOL)
(updated 2/24/16 -= My Prediction may still be correct, as Rubio has been rehabilitated, and now is "bad boy Rubio". He is their last chance! So we shall see)
January 29, 2016
the League of Conservative Voters, an environmental advocacy group, IS SUPPORTING Sanders’ Democratic foe, HILLARY CLINTON.
http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806
League of Conservation Voters to Sanders Campaign: Stop using our Logo in your Campaign Mailers,
ADVOCACY GROUPS CALL FOUL ON SANDERS CAMPAIGN IN IOWA, NEVADAthe League of Conservative Voters, an environmental advocacy group, IS SUPPORTING Sanders’ Democratic foe, HILLARY CLINTON.
http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806
January 29, 2016
MailerGate- AARP: We did NOT authorize the Sanders campaign to mention AARP NOR to use AARP Logo
Apparently, the Sanders campaign has been sending out mailers with AARP name and Logo attached, without permission....
Des Moines, January 26, 2106 — In response to the Sanders campaign mailing featuring AARP and the Association’s Take A Stand campaign, AARP does not endorse candidates, have a political action committee (PAC), or make contributions to political campaigns or candidates.
While we have encouraged the presidential candidates to lay out their plans to update Social Security, AARP did not authorize the Sanders campaign to mention AARP or use the AARP logo, and we did not participate in its production.
We have a proud 30-year history of non-partisan voter engagement, providing voters with information on where the candidates stand on issues important to our members and their families, so they can make their own decisions on Election Day.
http://states.aarp.org/aarp-statement-in-response-to-sanders-mailing/
January 29, 2016
FrenchieCat Here you go making that argument comparing Barney to Barack. That would be like saying that, if your White you can run espousing any policies that you want, No matter what the down tickets candidates believe. The only issue with Obama, was precisely that he was black, and possibly inexperienced, but he ran on a platform agreed-upon by the party.
Sanders, on the other hand is not just doing the exact opposite, but he also has other issues, like his age, his faith, Along with calling for a political revolution.
The only thing those two have in common, is that they are both senators, are/ were both running more of a people power campaigns,and they are/were both running against Hillary Clinton.
Sanders is not running against the George Bush administration, a failed financial system, and two ongoing wars, One of which was sold with lies... And that may be the biggest difference of all!
I will add that I don't personally think that Trump will get nomination. Republicans may be a whole Lotta things, but they are not totally out of their mind. They love power and money too much! They stole the 2000 election, and did it boldly, and I believe will do whatever it takes, to get back that White House, especially since it would result in A GOP trifecta.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
FrenchieCat Polls that currently show sanders beating most of the Republicans pre-Iowa, are the same polls that showed Obama losing to the Republicans at the very same time period. There's a reason for that, Because with Obama, Everyone automatically assumed that his race would keep him from winning. In the case of Barney, most people don't know who he is or what baggage he might have.
Obama had already spoken to the national Democratic convention in 2004, so Democratic voters knew exactly who he was and what he stood for. And it is when Oprah Winfrey endorsed him, that he really took off nationally. Barney has not experienced anything close
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
FrenchieCat No it isn't a fair comparison. Being black is not something you choose, while being a socialist is exactly that.
If Bernie's platform was so popular, Ralph Nader would've garnished many more votes when he ran, and the Green party would have more representation in Congress. But that isn't the case.
The fact that Obama is black, and Bernie is Jewish, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, those are similarities, but not what you're talking about.
If Obama have been advocating a socialist platform, and calling for revolution, he would not have gotten anywhere. Even in the running for the Senate, he wouldn't have won that! ...because Illinois, as a state is more representative of America then Vermont or/and Iowa.
So Bernie may has some white privilege, but it is not going to get him where you think.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat That is not what Bernie Sanders electability issue is, the fact that he is Jewish. It is the fact that he is non-religious at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat As a black person, born in the 50s, I'm saying that Bernie Sanders has a whole lot more to overcome in order to win an election then even Obama did! And I listed those issues.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat In this country walking around while black is absolutely not the same thing as walking around being a socialist. So I will just agree to disagree with your contention that the two are a fair comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat i'm a realist, and so when I look at an election, I handicap it from many different angles, because that's what one does if one wants to win. It's not good enough to simply say will the people that people shouldn't do that, because politics does not work that way. People should not have been questioning Barack Obama's pastor, but they did. People should not have been undermining John Kerry's veteran Bonafide, but they did. Voters should not have made fun of Al Gore because he allegedly said he invented the Internet, but they did. The opposition only needs enough of the people manipulated through an election cycle.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat Yes I live in California. Yes I have been naturalized because I was born in France. That is why I don't use the label that you do, plus I come from an era where African-American did not even exist. Like Obama I am of A white l mother and a black father! I hope and prays that it makes me black enough, because I'm certainly not white!
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat But why are you questioning me about that? I've been a member of this Forum since 2011! Far as I'm concerned, it's very possible that people who have a black picture on their Facebook page, may not be black. These days anything is possible!
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat That response was prompted by your post right before it, since you told me you were an African American born in the 60s
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat no, I was trying to figure out why you were questioning me about where I lived and whether I was eligible to vote. I don't know where you live or if you're eligible to vote. Me not calling myself African-American would not normally prompt those following questions of yours .... Because many people of my era label themselves black, which is exactly what I did. So I didn't say anything unusual.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat I really don't want to feel like I have to personally prove myself to Sanders supporters. I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm living in Russia, since it appears that I need to answer questions about myself that are personal. Again I'll agree to disagree. It was a great discussion though
Like · Reply · 1 hr ·
People Who self-identify as Black instead of African-American may be "suspect"? Getta outa here BS!
Conversation that I had today with an alleged African-American BS Supporter on FB.
Posted without further comments -
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Here comes the electability argument again. As I pointed out before, it's too early for that.
As the book, "Winning in the White House 2008" pointed out, in a late January 2007 Gallup Poll, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said Barack Obama only had a 21% chance of beating the Republican nominee.
Barack Obama's perceived electability was low at this point, and guess what? He was elected.
As far as Democrats in Congress aligning with Hillary now, they'll align with Bernie if he wins the primary.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs
FrenchieCat Here you go making that argument comparing Barney to Barack. That would be like saying that, if your White you can run espousing any policies that you want, No matter what the down tickets candidates believe. The only issue with Obama, was precisely that he was black, and possibly inexperienced, but he ran on a platform agreed-upon by the party.
Sanders, on the other hand is not just doing the exact opposite, but he also has other issues, like his age, his faith, Along with calling for a political revolution.
The only thing those two have in common, is that they are both senators, are/ were both running more of a people power campaigns,and they are/were both running against Hillary Clinton.
Sanders is not running against the George Bush administration, a failed financial system, and two ongoing wars, One of which was sold with lies... And that may be the biggest difference of all!
I will add that I don't personally think that Trump will get nomination. Republicans may be a whole Lotta things, but they are not totally out of their mind. They love power and money too much! They stole the 2000 election, and did it boldly, and I believe will do whatever it takes, to get back that White House, especially since it would result in A GOP trifecta.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
FrenchieCat Polls that currently show sanders beating most of the Republicans pre-Iowa, are the same polls that showed Obama losing to the Republicans at the very same time period. There's a reason for that, Because with Obama, Everyone automatically assumed that his race would keep him from winning. In the case of Barney, most people don't know who he is or what baggage he might have.
Obama had already spoken to the national Democratic convention in 2004, so Democratic voters knew exactly who he was and what he stood for. And it is when Oprah Winfrey endorsed him, that he really took off nationally. Barney has not experienced anything close
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS With Obama, people automatically assumed that his race would keep him from winning. With Bernie Sanders, people automatically assume his being a democratic socialist would keep him from winning.
That's a fair basis for comparison.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Even with his speech at the Democratic Convention, and even with Oprah endorsing him later (she had not endorsed him yet at this point in the process), 79% of Democrats and Democratic leaning voters saw Obama as unelectable at this point in the process, and he was elected.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
FrenchieCat No it isn't a fair comparison. Being black is not something you choose, while being a socialist is exactly that.
If Bernie's platform was so popular, Ralph Nader would've garnished many more votes when he ran, and the Green party would have more representation in Congress. But that isn't the case.
The fact that Obama is black, and Bernie is Jewish, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, those are similarities, but not what you're talking about.
If Obama have been advocating a socialist platform, and calling for revolution, he would not have gotten anywhere. Even in the running for the Senate, he wouldn't have won that! ...because Illinois, as a state is more representative of America then Vermont or/and Iowa.
So Bernie may has some white privilege, but it is not going to get him where you think.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Bernie Sanders faith is a big issue? To you maybe, and to the mainstream media that does not want him to win, but remember, the Republicans nominated a Mormon to run against President Obama last time around.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat That is not what Bernie Sanders electability issue is, the fact that he is Jewish. It is the fact that he is non-religious at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS FrenchieCat, as an African American who was born in the sixties, I say yes, it is a fair comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat As a black person, born in the 50s, I'm saying that Bernie Sanders has a whole lot more to overcome in order to win an election then even Obama did! And I listed those issues.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
FrenchieCat In this country walking around while black is absolutely not the same thing as walking around being a socialist. So I will just agree to disagree with your contention that the two are a fair comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS: Why didn't Ralph Nader get more votes when he ran?
Because he didn't run as a Democrat, and he had to overcome that party loyalty.
Running as an independent, I don't even think he had ballot access in every state.
Plus, he had to overcome people like you throwing out that unelectability line.
As a result, many, many people who wanted to vote for him didn't, so that's why so few people did vote for him. Bernie Sanders won't face the same issue, unless people fall for that unelectability propaganda.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS: Being a black person born in the 50's does not, by itself, make specially qualified to make that assessment.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS By the way, I noticed you said you're a black person, but you didn't say you're African American. Are you an American citizen? Do you live in America?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat i'm a realist, and so when I look at an election, I handicap it from many different angles, because that's what one does if one wants to win. It's not good enough to simply say will the people that people shouldn't do that, because politics does not work that way. People should not have been questioning Barack Obama's pastor, but they did. People should not have been undermining John Kerry's veteran Bonafide, but they did. Voters should not have made fun of Al Gore because he allegedly said he invented the Internet, but they did. The opposition only needs enough of the people manipulated through an election cycle.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat Yes I live in California. Yes I have been naturalized because I was born in France. That is why I don't use the label that you do, plus I come from an era where African-American did not even exist. Like Obama I am of A white l mother and a black father! I hope and prays that it makes me black enough, because I'm certainly not white!
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat But why are you questioning me about that? I've been a member of this Forum since 2011! Far as I'm concerned, it's very possible that people who have a black picture on their Facebook page, may not be black. These days anything is possible!
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
BS SUPPORTER WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS Read my post again. I never questioned whether you were black or not. SMH...
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat That response was prompted by your post right before it, since you told me you were an African American born in the 60s
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat no, I was trying to figure out why you were questioning me about where I lived and whether I was eligible to vote. I don't know where you live or if you're eligible to vote. Me not calling myself African-American would not normally prompt those following questions of yours .... Because many people of my era label themselves black, which is exactly what I did. So I didn't say anything unusual.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
FrenchieCat I really don't want to feel like I have to personally prove myself to Sanders supporters. I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm living in Russia, since it appears that I need to answer questions about myself that are personal. Again I'll agree to disagree. It was a great discussion though
Like · Reply · 1 hr ·
January 26, 2016
All three of the Candidates on Stage were wonderful! They were so thoughtful & Gracious towards....
each other!
Vote for who you want, but what I like about them is they weren't nasty,
and they promoted themselves 98.5%,
and discussed their adversaries 1.5% of the time...if that!
Wish I could read the same here.....
That is all!
January 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton Is One of the Most Ethical (and Most Lied About) Political Leade
Hillary Clinton Is One of the Most Ethical (and Most Lied About) Political Leaders in America
By Peter Daou January 23, 2016
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-is-one-of-the-most-ethical-and-most-lied-about-political-leaders-in-america/
If the headline of this piece blows some minds, you can thank three decades of relentless lies and smears by the conservative attack machine and its mainstream media enablers, who have labored to create an aura of corruption around Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s detractors on the right, left and center reel off a laundry list of unsupported accusations with an air of absolute authority, as though it is simply a given that she is a terrible, horrible, no-good human being.
And that is precisely the intention: Taint her through innuendo and guilt-by-association, throw enough dirt at her that voters develop an instant negative association with her name. Accuse, accuse, accuse until the accusation becomes the reality, and may the truth be damned.
More... http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-is-one-of-the-most-ethical-and-most-lied-about-political-leaders-in-america/
January 24, 2016
Here's what I will say about running as President while Black-
First, let us agree that being born of a particular race is not something that one controls.
Let's also establish that in order for Obama to win as the first Black presidential nominee, he had to be "perfect" in terms of what and who he represented. Obama, in order to pass muster with the White electorate, had to be young, tall, handsome, hip, charming, and Christian! He also offered skilled oratory, a fascinating life story, a beautiful young family to show while having gotten the best of education; Columbia and Harvard Law and as Pres. of the Harvard Law Review. Even beyond that, he offered himself as a moderate Democrat who came from a large mid-west state with roots in another state (Hawaii), who had been elected to the senate for a short while.
After all of those qualifications were met, Obama than ran a campaign that had never been seen before on a Hope and change platform of restoring the Nation to a semblance of what it had been prior to Bush taking office with some improvements added! His platform was ending the wars while reestablishing our image around the world via diplomacy, bringing back our economy from the brink, providing affordable health care insurance to more Americans (as affordability was diminishing at an alarming rate). An overwhelming majority were war weary and financially fearful after America had suffered 8 years under Bush, who was at the height of his unpopularity throughout the 2008 election.
It is only my opinion that Sanders is not like Obama, as he doesn't have many of the personal attributes and qualities that Obama offered, but also because the circumstances and the particulars of each man and times are quite different. 2016 is not 2008! Obama ran in 2008, after Bush had screwed everything up. Obama was precisely able to win specifically because an overwhelming portion of the American electorate wanted change from Bush and that GOP disasters! Sanders isn't running in that environment!
Further, if Obama looked and sounded like Bernie Sanders, and shared some of Bernie Sanders other attributes and offered a similar platform, I don't know if Pres. Obama would have been elected in 2008. But of course, that's only my speculation!
The only similarities from my standpoint is that Sanders has, like Obama did in his election, captured the hearts and minds of the disgruntled Liberals (and honestly, most of them didn't appreciate Pres. Obama at all from day one...even if they voted for him) , the young idealists who believe anything is possible (since they know that electing a Black President was an impossible that did happen), the folks who aren't looking past the pro arguments that the Bernie Supporters have discussed because they like the platform so, and those who not only believe in what Bernie is offering but also quite dislike Hillary Clinton, and what they believe she represents. Beyond that, the two men are like Night and Day!
Fighting for the Black Vote.....
How easy is it to win the Black Vote?
Perhaps it's as easy as comparing yourself over and over to Pres. Obama, in shadowing the hurdles Obama faced running for the Presidential nomination as a Black man.
In other-words, Hillary Clinton can be called on her Wall Street ties, her establishment links, one not to be trusted, that Republicans hate her and will come out just to vote against her so she can't win, and discussion made about her Husbands infidelities as they relate to her are pretty much par for the course. But discussing Bernie Sanders and his ideas and his chances at the general election are off limits and they cannot be analyzed or criticized, as he will then compare himself to Obama, a Black man? Is he intimating that the critiques about his campaign are racial? That he is actually Black and so these are racial insinuations?
I don't particularly think that is how a White man wins the Black vote....but maybe it is just as easy as that! Add in a Pic of you at a March that isn't really you, and presto chango, that Black vote is yours for the taking?
Sanders says the flak he’s getting from Clinton reminds him of what Obama got in 2008.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/23/sanders-says-the-flak-hes-getting-from-clinton-reminds-him-of-what-obama-got-in-2008/
Remember that? Eight years ago, Obama was being attacked for everything. He was unrealistic. His ideas were pie-in-the sky. He did not have the experience that was needed. You know what? People of Iowa saw through those attacks then, and they’re going to see through those attacks again.”
Here's what I will say about running as President while Black-
First, let us agree that being born of a particular race is not something that one controls.
Let's also establish that in order for Obama to win as the first Black presidential nominee, he had to be "perfect" in terms of what and who he represented. Obama, in order to pass muster with the White electorate, had to be young, tall, handsome, hip, charming, and Christian! He also offered skilled oratory, a fascinating life story, a beautiful young family to show while having gotten the best of education; Columbia and Harvard Law and as Pres. of the Harvard Law Review. Even beyond that, he offered himself as a moderate Democrat who came from a large mid-west state with roots in another state (Hawaii), who had been elected to the senate for a short while.
After all of those qualifications were met, Obama than ran a campaign that had never been seen before on a Hope and change platform of restoring the Nation to a semblance of what it had been prior to Bush taking office with some improvements added! His platform was ending the wars while reestablishing our image around the world via diplomacy, bringing back our economy from the brink, providing affordable health care insurance to more Americans (as affordability was diminishing at an alarming rate). An overwhelming majority were war weary and financially fearful after America had suffered 8 years under Bush, who was at the height of his unpopularity throughout the 2008 election.
It is only my opinion that Sanders is not like Obama, as he doesn't have many of the personal attributes and qualities that Obama offered, but also because the circumstances and the particulars of each man and times are quite different. 2016 is not 2008! Obama ran in 2008, after Bush had screwed everything up. Obama was precisely able to win specifically because an overwhelming portion of the American electorate wanted change from Bush and that GOP disasters! Sanders isn't running in that environment!
Further, if Obama looked and sounded like Bernie Sanders, and shared some of Bernie Sanders other attributes and offered a similar platform, I don't know if Pres. Obama would have been elected in 2008. But of course, that's only my speculation!
The only similarities from my standpoint is that Sanders has, like Obama did in his election, captured the hearts and minds of the disgruntled Liberals (and honestly, most of them didn't appreciate Pres. Obama at all from day one...even if they voted for him) , the young idealists who believe anything is possible (since they know that electing a Black President was an impossible that did happen), the folks who aren't looking past the pro arguments that the Bernie Supporters have discussed because they like the platform so, and those who not only believe in what Bernie is offering but also quite dislike Hillary Clinton, and what they believe she represents. Beyond that, the two men are like Night and Day!
January 23, 2016
--I'm backing Hillary Clinton in the Primaries--
Why? Because only she can save us from a 100% GOP stronghold, and that's why she will have my vote!
She is our only hope not only to save our sorry butts, but to save much of the world.
I decided this 3 days ago after watching the News Media salivating at the thought of Hillary Clinton losing, and Bernie Sanders becoming our nominee!
Bernie Sanders has not yet been vetted, and the media hopes that won't happen until after the primaries....till then, it's Trump, Cruz, Trump, Hillary emails, and Bernie is Surging!
As a Corporate media Hater, I know their ways, and it is obvious to me now that they understand exactly that Bernie Sanders, once vetted, will not win Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia or Florida and perhaps some more states! Those are the states that are needed but are normally close enough and have in the recent past gone back and forth!
Do I Love Hillary Clinton? She's OK with me,
and considering the alternative which is not Bernie Sander but a Republican,
She will do just fine, thank you!
Go Hillary!
PS: The polls citing that Sanders does better against Republicans in a General election are the same polls who had Obama losing by up to 12 points to John McCain right before the first Iowa Caucus!
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Northern California
Member since: Mon Oct 13, 2003, 06:47 PM
Number of posts: 68,867