Ahhh Hillary's mentor ehhhhhhhhhh??

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lessee, whatta they call Guilt by Association?

#21 | Posted by Corky

No it's called yet another example of hillary's lousy judgement and defaulting to the elites status quo. Which is why america rejected her twice.

Hell, they are certain he would have beaten Trump. Which is very imaginative.

#31 | Posted by Corky

Not when you look at the success of fetterman in a swing state. People want populist democrats. Not kissinger loving sellouts.

I always get a kick out of the Bernie Bros who think that the Jewish, atheist, socialist stood a chance in the general election. Kamala, the Black woman who doesn't have any kids, has about the same chance of getting elected.

#32 | Posted by censored

Dems nominated the only person in the country who COULDNT beat trump, because it was "her turn".

Agreed that she felt that it was her turn. Would have alienated too may women if she wasn't the nominee, unfortunately.

#35 | Posted by censored a

Sure all those women would have stayed home and refused to vote against the admitted ----- grabber if hillary weren't the nominee. Sure.

What facilitated the rise of dubya was the clintons. For being corporate sellouts and a sexual predator.

What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being a corporate sellout who protected the bankers who wrecked the economy instead of prosecuting them and proving that dems fight for the working class.

What enabled the election of trump was hillary, the worst possible sellout iraq voting dem they could have chosen.

See the pattern? Every time dems nominate a corporate sellout republicans win. If it weren't for a once in a century pandemic in an election year, trump would still be president.

In 2024 dems will offer up another corporate sellout, and repubs will win.

I guess we'll have to wait until the Dems nominate Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, or that Jewish atheist socialist you like to see if that works. Cause there's nothing that excites voters to elect a Dem like hearing about a 90% top marginal tax rate.

As I said, we are a stupid people. I guess some of us are dumb enough to think that no loaf is better than half a loaf. Enjoy your no loaf two years.

#38 | Posted by censored

Where's the half loaf? We elected moderate dems and what have they done? Some new roads and bridges that the fascists will get to put their names on when they take back power.

Did they defend democracy and stop repubs from rigging elections? Nope.
Did they fix the supreme court to make it represent the country? Nope.
Gun control? Nope.
Police reform? Nope.
Did they even prosecute the fascists who tried to overthrow the government, which would require ZERO republican votes? Nope.

All they did is put a 2 year pause on fascism and take power where massive inflation was going to be blamed on whoever was in office. Did they punish the price gougers ripping off the american people under the guise of inflation? Nope. Did they stop corporations of foreign citizens from buying up all our homes, sight unseen? Nope.

Ooo but the new press secretary is female AND black AND gay! And dems act like that's going to win them a single vote.

What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being Black.

FTFY.

#39 | Posted by snoofy

That's every corporate dem's excuse.

It wasn't trump's racism that got him elected. It was his populism. Otherwise, there wouldnt have been any obama -> trump voters. But there were a lot.

Obama was mr HOPE AND CHANGE who they voted for while the bankers were crashing the economy. Occupy wall street was happening. Then obama betrayed the entire movement and proved dems are just big money sellouts too. Dems rejected populism, so trump embraced it and won.

We came pretty close to having our democracy collapse a couple years ago.

#43 | Posted by censored

We sure did. So why aren't dems doing anything about that? As i said - it requires zero republican votes. All it requires is courage and the willingness to prosecute criminals. If we handn't elected a pathetic moderate president maybe we'd have a PROSECUTOR as attorney general, instead of a JUDGE who values seeming nonpartisan above saving democracy.

What has dems message been since they got elected? Could the average american even tell you? Forget votes. What would the average american tell you dems even believe in? Pronoun enforcement and defund the police most likely.

In any event, even if the Dems passed all the legislation of your dreams, Trump's SCOTUS would probably toss in the crapper. Not much solace, I know, but thems the breaks.

#45 | Posted by censored

Which is why making the case to the country for fixing the supreme court should have been their first priority.

So how'd he win a second term?
Your narrative can't explain how he won a second term. Or why Clinton won a second term, for that matter.

#49 | Posted by snoofy

Because presidents almost always win a second term. Trump would have too if it weren't for a once in a century pandemic, even though he'd displayed massive corruption and crimes to the whole world.

OK. YOu can't be a socialist and a white supremacist?

Many far-right groups might be even more anti-capitalist than you are. For a variety of reasons.

#63 | Posted by madbomber

Occupy wall street was the left.

Overthrow democracy was the right.

Dude, pretty much everything you say suggests you should have been at the Capitol on Jan 6. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court, and I'm not sure what you mean by "fix," but it's almost certainly unconstitutional.

#60 | Posted by madbomber

FIX means make it represent the opinions of america, instead of passing policies that only a small minority wants, because a majority of judges were appointed by president who didn't even get the most votes to get elected and 2 seats were outright stolen. Every thing this court does is illegitimate and will be until it's rebalanced to reflect the country.

That is absolutely, 100%, not the role of the Supreme Court. Unless you think that popular opinion should determine the legality of legislation. In which case you don't really need a supreme court.

#70 | Posted by madbomber

Doesn't matter. Any ruling that comes from a supreme court where 2 seats were stolen, 3 seats were filled by a traitor on putin's payroll, 3 justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and a majority of judges were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote - is illegitimate.

The left just wants the capitalists money.

#69 | Posted by madbomber

The left just wants capital to circulate fairly, instead of capitalists being allowed to buy the government and write rules that allows them to suck up all the capital and make everyone else suffer.

"The left just wants capital to circulate fairly"

It does circulate fairly.

#77 | Posted by madbomber

So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?

Maybe you and a bunch of your friends should beat down the doors of the Supreme Court building and express you anger at their illigitimacy.

#76 | Posted by madbomber

We did that in 2020 by electing democrats. It's their job to fix the problem.

We dont attempt coups. Your cult does. And you keep voting for them.

I voted for Biden.

But I think when you refer to "my" cult, you're actually referring to anyone who isn't in your cult.

#83 | Posted by madbomber

Sure you did. And you voted for a bunch of people who voted to enable trump and not hold him accoutable for his crimes.

Who's my cult leader? What are my cult's beliefs?

Then they are failing miserably. The rich pay the vast majority of income taxes in the US. Both in total amount and effective tax rate.

In contrast, low income earners in Europe have a far greater income tax rate than low income earners in the US

#89 | Posted by madbomber

So how come it's so much less miserable to be poor in europe than in the USA? How come they have more class mobility than we do?

If the rich are paying so much taxes in america, how come they have a larger share of wealth than every before, and the poor have less?

"So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"

You would need to give me an example.

#82 | Posted by madbomber

Trump's 10 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. The rich's tax cuts were huge and PERMANENT, the working class's tax cuts were small and TEMPORARY. Love to hear your explanation for that.

he derails any conversation about them with diversions of socialism.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack

He has a google alert to tell him anytime the word SOCIALISM appears on any retort thread so he can jump in and start implying democrats mean stalin or china when they use the word socialism, instead of meaning canada or sweden.

Best of luck accomplishing that with Manchin and "School Girl Outfit Curtsy" Sinema calling the shots. Manchin is about as close to a Republican as one can get without an (R). And Sinema, she just likes the attention and pretending to be Mavericky because that's how she thinks she can fill McCain's shoes.

You seem to expect an awful lot of a Dem party that barely has any power.

At this point, I'm just glad we have someone in office who isn't a petty dictator-in-waiting bending over for Putin on command and trying to figure out how to off half of our people.

#102 | Posted by censored

I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right. It establishes what your long term goals are and lets people know what they're voting for when they vote for your party. Just like trump didn't build the wall, but his supporters love him for trying. It shows what side you're on and who you represent.

It also puts a huge target on your back if you come from a swing state. The Dems had a supermajority in the Senate in 2008 and lost it about a year later when a Repub took Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts of all places. Then Dems lost power almost entirely because they had the gall to try to provide some minimal healthcare for Americans.

This country is not nearly as progressive as you believe. Even incremental change is a stretch, IMHO, as half of this nation would gladly re-elect a man who tried to tear our country down.

#104 | Posted by censored

Or it gives people in swing states a reason to vote for you.

The way to win swing states is not being as moderate and inoffensive as possible. Watch john fetterman.

This country is more anti moderate than you believe. Especially the people who dont vote who could be convinced to vote democrat, if democrats showed any spine or willingness to fight.

You think Dems loudly claiming that they are the pro-abortion party is going to win them 60 seats in the Senate? Even Al Gore had to be pro-life to get elected to the Senate from Tennessee. Or Dems defining themselves as the socialism party is going to convince Cubans to vote for them in Florida?

The Senate is counter-majoritarian by design. And there aren't enough blue-leaning folks in the flyover states to offset the middle-of-the-road voters who would be turned off.

Heck, Bernie couldn't even win the Dem nomination, let alone the general. You think that apathetic voters who sit out the general election are more liberal than the Dem party that rejected Bernie twice?

#106 | Posted by censored

You're afraid of loudly proclaiming something that a large majority of the country agrees with?

What percentage of the people would need to support a policy before you think dems can loudly proclaim they support it? 90? 100?

Dems are too cowardly to even loudly proclaim we should legalize weed, even though its supported by a majority of americans.

Doesn't matter if 100% of Massachusetts agrees with something if only 49% of North Dakota agrees with it. That's how you end up losing those flyover states crucial to controlling the Senate. And socialism isn't something that the majority of this country agrees with. Maybe if you call it "equality of opportunity" or something. But the person selling it probably shouldn't be a self-avowed Jewish, socialist, atheist.

#108 | Posted by censored

YOu're not winning north dakota anyway. So it's all about what north carolina, pennsylvania, and michigan think. And swing states have majorities that support abortion. Christ moderate dems are absolutely blinded by cowardice.

If dems are only allowed to push policies that north dakota approves of, what does that leave for them to support?

I was talking mostly about the Senate, like Tester from Montana or Manchin from W.V. "Build the Wall" was a net positive for Repubs. My guess is "I Luv Socialism" or "Abort that Babay!" might end up being a net negative for Manchin or Tester.

Also, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin were determinative in the last presidential election by a total of 90,000 votes. That means as few as 45,000 Biden voters would have swung the election to Trump if they switched their vote. Maybe you have a more charitable impression of the residents of those states than I do, but they don't strike me as socialism or abortion lovers.

If dems are only allowed to push policies that north dakota approves of, what does that leave for them to support? #112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Beats me! The electoral college and the senate system are fairly idiotic. Dems did OK for about forty years by being racist and supporting farmers. But then Dems switched to loving Blacks after Blacks won the right to vote and then abortion became an issue. The Repubs then decided that they loved farm subsidies, government intrusion into people's medical decisions and hated Blacks and they got a lock on the south and midwest.

I figured demographic changes would doom Repubs to losing elections in a few years, but now Latinos have decided that they kinda like Republicans.

It's a bit of a mess, but Repubs know how to rile folks up, with gay marriage, trans stuff, abortion, guns, etc.

None of that really motivates Dem-leaning voters to the same degree; I'm not really sure what does, at this point. Like I said, herding cats.

#113 | Posted by censored

All those swing states you listed have a majority supporting legal abortion. Dont be too stupid to run on what is popular in swing states.

we're not winning west virginia again even with another democrat on the republican payroll like manchin. You MIGHT win it with someone like fetterman.

Americans DO love socialism if you present it to them as a fight for their well being instead of wonky policies or calling it socialism. Call it FREE COLLEGE and they want it. Call if HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and they want it. Call it KILL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY and they love it. Call it TAX THE RICH and they want it. Call it STOP CORPORATE TAX CHEATS and they'll vote for it. But it's hard to do those things when you're taking bribe money from those industries isn't it?
That's why dem's lost the working class. Because they got bought off and stopped fighting for them so they can't credibly claim to be on their side.

Yeah, but will they turn out in the same numbers to vote for Dems as the number of folks it'll motivate to turn out against? I dunno.

Americans DO love socialism if you present it to them as a fight for their well being instead of wonky policies or calling it socialism. Call it FREE COLLEGE and they want it. Call if HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and they want it. Call it KILL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY and they love it. Call it TAX THE RICH and they want it. Call it STOP CORPORATE TAX CHEATS and they'll vote for it. #114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Yeah, I used to love some of those ideas, but not really a fan of picking up the tab for people to study basket-weaving anymore.

Trying for universal healthcare cost Dems their congressional majority twice, so maybe if people actually want that stuff, they should come out and vote for it in midterms. I know, you're going to say that the healthcare reforms didn't go far enough. The voting results showed that most people felt that it went too far, though, to the point that they didn't even want to be responsible for a token fine for going without insurance. I don't think that folks who objected to a $2K fine are going to want to pay far more than that in taxes for a truly universal healthcare system, even if it ends up being a net positive once you deduct the savings from not paying for health insurance.

I reiterate, we are a stupid and divided people. The Repubs profit from that division, while Dems sit around and whine abut how life isn't fair and then stay at home and let Repubs win elections. Almost makes me want to become a Republican (say what you will about the tenets of the GOP, but it's a ethos).

#115 | Posted by censored

So give them more than that. Fight for abortion to stay legal, weed to become legal, prosecuting corporate criminals, free education, and killing insurance companies, THEN ACTUALLY DO IT instead of selling out like all the bribe taking clintons and obamas.

Dems stay home because last time they didnt' stay home dems didn't fight for them. What you're describing is the RESULT of the dems' cowardice. Not the reason for them to continue being cowards.

How great for our nations future that even democrats are swallowing the "what do we need college for?" propaganda usually shoveled by the party that benefits when the nation is stupider.

Yeah why would we want people who've taken history classes and learned what the early stages of fascism look like? All we need to know how to do are work stamping machines.

That's because it is capitalism, stupid.

What is it with you idiots refusing to even try to learn economics? And what is your issue with calling capitalism capitalism? You just can't get the words out of your throat?

And your weird obsession with branding yourself a socialist...one of most vile systems of all time, certainly of the last century.

#125 | Posted by madbomber

So how come when dems say SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE you scream SOCIALISM! VENEZEULA! CHINA!

"Trump's 10 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. The rich's tax cuts were huge and PERMANENT, the working class's tax cuts were small and TEMPORARY. Love to hear your explanation for that."

This allowed people to keep more of their earned ioncome. I did little to nothing to influence the value of one's labor. High income earner or poor.

#120 | Posted by madbomber

Income they earned all on their own without any support from government or society?

You dodged the question: Why were the tax cuts for the rich huge and permanent while the tax cuts for the working class were small and temporary?

You asked for evidence that the rich use their wealth to write rules to make themselves wealthier and there it is.

"I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right."

Most of what you think is right, the rest of the country considers wrong.

#128 | Posted by madbomber

A majority of america thinks roe should be upheld. So they agree with me, and not with the illegitimate supreme court.

"Income they earned all on their own without any support from government or society?"

Anyone who helped them, government or otherwise, was compensated for their services.

#132 | Posted by madbomber

Really? How were the roadbuilders who's roads you used compensated? With TAXES paid for by other taxpayers, that build infrastructure for YOU to use, so you could make money. That money you made therefore is partially owed back to the government/society who made those roads and therefore made your business possible.

DUH.

You sound like a Trumper whining about illegitimate governments.

#135 | Posted by madbomber

Trumpers also whine about stolen elections. When they're the ones trying to steal them.

Just because a trumper lies, doesn't mean someone else isn't telling the truth.

The supreme court no longer represents the country. It represents a small slice of the country that has rigged the system to give themselves an unearned share of power. The same small slice that never stops trying to find new ways to cheat to give themselves even more power.

"You dodged the question: Why were the tax cuts for the rich huge and permanent while the tax cuts for the working class were small and temporary?"

I couldn't tell you.

But what I can tell you is that the rich were/are already paying an inordinately high chuck of the federal income tax bill, both in total dollars and percentage.

#133 | Posted by madbomber

You could tell me but that would require you to admit that I'm right - that the wealthy use their wealth to bribe government to rig the economy in their favor - and you can't do that.

If their tax rates are so inordinately high, why do the wealthy have a larger percentage of the wealth in the country than every before? Because they're working harder than ever before? No. Because they're rigged the economy to benefit solely themselves more than every before.

First, the government doesn't have any money it doesn't first take from the taxpayers. So you need reframe it as investing taxpayer dollars into operations, activities, and investments that benefit all of society. Which the government already does.

#141 | Posted by madbomber

Taxpayers dont have any money that they earn without support from the government. It's a partnership. Something "My money is all mine and I earned it all on my own" babies are too dumb to understand.

"If their tax rates are so inordinately high, why do the wealthy have a larger percentage of the wealth in the country than every before?"

Because they created the wealth.

#145 | Posted by madbomber

Workers create the wealth. The rich harvest it from them. That's why making workers work harder makes the rich richer.

Then the rich take that wealth, and use it to get politicians elected who promise to lower their taxes, which creates the need to cut social services that benefit workers and help them rise above the working class.

You're like a spoiled child. I'm guessing because you are a spoiled child.

#144 | Posted by madbomber

This coming from the guy who benefits from government programs that he doesnt want anyone else to have.

"Taxpayers dont have any money that they earn without support from the government."

Yeah?

Which of your preferred politicians should stump with that campaign message?

Do you think Joe should lead off with that for 2024? Maybe even the whole Dem party?

"you bitches don't earn ---- unless we say you do."

It'll be super successful, I'm, sure.

#152 | Posted by madbomber

What message? Reality? I noticed you dont deny it.

"The rich have used their wealth to rig government and the economy in their favor" is a very popular message.

YOu, my friend, are a Marxist.

One of the last of a dying breed. It is my pleasure to have actually known one before they faded into the oblivion of history.

#153 | Posted by madbomber

And you are a moron who took one class and thinks you can dodge every ethical issue with a semantic debate about the historical movements that end with "ISM".

The ones squeezing growing and squeezing the lemons are the ones who make the lemonade and quench people's thirst.

People are going to get wealthy.....I know that stings but it's going to happen. That Thom Hartmann video talks about a higher frequency of new billionaires being generated.

Yep.....I'm sure that's right.

Get used to more and more of that.

#160 | Posted by eberly

Even the billionaires know where the hoarding of national wealth eventually leads, which is why the Bushes bought a survival compound down in argentina and new zealand is selling rows of survival bunker mansions to american milloinaires and billionaires.

tell me why they shouldn't be rich.

I might agree with you but you should give me a specific example of how the tax code generated a billionaire that shouldn't be a billionaire.

#166 | Posted by eberly a

By cutting their tax rates dum dum.

Tell me why billionaires should be getting tax cuts while teachers have to take side jobs to pay their rent.

Before anybody tries to jump into this...please confirm you understand and comprehend the statement below.....

"You can't stop the innovation of new technologies that will generate these efficiencies that ultimately runs a low-skilled worker out of job."

I have issue with addressing capital gains tax rates vs income tax rates. I've always conceded that's an issue.

But it doesn't address my statement regarding innovation and how it will be punitive towards the bottom 20%.

You are shackled to the notion that changing tax rates addresses that challenge.

It doesn't and none of you seem to understand that.

#171 | Posted by eberly

That's why a responsible government would TAX those who profit from getting rid of human workers and use that money to fund education and training so that we dont become a nation of insanely rich happy people living in fortresses to protect themselves from the mobs of desperate and angry poor people with no hopes of bettering their lives.

Replacing jobs with technology is fine, as long as you're creating alternate means to keep society from slipping into the abyss, like education or andrew yangs idea of paying everyone enough to exist.

I understand what you want....for companies to be taxed more heavily.

The govt takes that extra money and invests it into education, re-training, etc so they have somewhere else to go for employment.

Again, this isn't my point.

My point is that you can't stop the very practice that generates this unfortunate worker and his lot in life with tax rates.

You might have a solution for that worker once he's kicked to the curb (although unrealistic politically) but it doesn't change the first act that puts him there.

#197 | Posted by eberly

It's only unrealistic politically because they party people like you keep voting for wont allow it to happen.

What's the republican solution to the rich getting richer through automation and the working class slipping into jobless desperation?