Post #410,733
6/6/16 8:59:32 AM
6/6/16 8:59:32 AM
|
EXACTLY.
Since Democrats controlled the House and Senate by large majorities, and the White House ... That is exactly my point. YOU keep electing these hacks with "roots founded in conservatism" who "ended the era of big government forever" as well as "welfare as we know it", etc. You know, all those programs put in place by the very same real Democrats to which you refer. And what was HRC doing back then? I'm not taking the apologist tack here you and Rand seem so fond of, I keep bringing up the Goldwater Girl period because it was a formative period of her life.Goldwater Girl values are her *core* values and you're helping her claim they are Democratic values. I'll make a deal with you. I will vote for Democrats again when Hillary releases the transcripts of her multi-million dollar speeches to Wall Street. Deal?
|
Post #410,738
6/6/16 9:59:16 AM
6/6/16 9:59:16 AM
|
People in divided government have to compromise. Imagine that.
Carter had to compromise even when Democrats had all the levers in DC. Not everyone agreed with him and his policies.
The answer is to elect more Democrats so that the left has more support. Nancy and Harry got stuff done because they had blue-dog votes along with Lefty McLeftist votes. That's the way the American system works.
You're pining for a pure system that agrees with you in every detail. That system never was and never will be.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #410,748
6/6/16 11:35:35 AM
6/6/16 11:35:35 AM
|
What's divided? Two Right Wings don't count.
You are casting history in fiction. The New Democrats *ARE* the Old Republicans. Take a look at the following quote FROM AN OLD REPUBLICAN and hopefully you'll see the truth of that. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
― Dwight D. Eisenhower https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/153796-should-any-political-party-attempt-to-abolish-social-security-unemployment
|
Post #410,755
6/6/16 12:00:51 PM
6/6/16 12:00:51 PM
|
Your continuing to say that doesn't make it so.
One could just as easily say that Eisenhower would be a Democrat these days, and there's actually evidence to support that position. Which party would issues statements like these now: Under the attached plan, approximately 10 1/2 million individuals would be offered social security protection for the first time. About 6 1/2 million of these would be brought into the system; the remaining 4 million would be eligible for coverage under voluntary group arrangements. New groups to be covered would include self-employed farmers; many more farm workers and domestic workers than are now covered; doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, accounts and other professional people; members of many state and local retirement systems on a voluntary group basis; clergymen on a voluntary group basis and several other smaller groups.
As the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives proceeds with its studies to improve the Social Security Act, I strongly commend to this plan for the extension of coverage to most of the major groups now covered by any social insurance or public retirement system. This is a specific plan for a specific purpose--the extension of coverage. Other important improvements in the Social Security Act are now under study and will be subject of further recommendation.
There are two points about these proposals which I cannot stress too strongly. One is my belief that they would add immeasurably to the peace of mind and security of the individual citizens who would be covered for the first time under this plan; the second is my belief that they would add greatly to the national sense of domestic security. The systematic practice of setting aside funds during the productive years are over--or to one's survivors in the event of death--is important to the strength of our traditions and our economy. We must not only preserve this systematic practice, but extend it at every desirable opportunity. We now have both such an opportunity and a definite plan. I commend it to the Congress for its consideration. I wasn't around when Eisenhower was President. I remember GOP leaders who said things like this and this and this. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,762
6/6/16 1:26:00 PM
6/6/16 1:26:00 PM
|
What are we arguing again?
I've said (in essence), "Since Reagan, the Democratic Party has morphed into the Republican Party and the Republican Party has morphed into the Lunatic Party." You've claimed that isn't so. That the Democratic Party is very different from the Old Republican Party. I then post a quote from an Old Style Republican President and you say, "Well, he would be a Democrat today ..." (which I think, is MY point) and then cite Reagan and a couple of successors in an apparent attempt to claim New Democrats aren't New Republicans. I'll give you that. Heck, that's what I've said. From my POV, you claim New Republicans aren't like New Democrats, so New Democrats are not like Old Republicans. That doesn't follow.
I think we might be talking past one another again. Here's a summary of my views and I'd be surprised if you disagreed:
(1) Are New Republicans worse than Old Republicans? Of course they are. They are insane, and either stupid (useful idiots), corrupt supporters of or members of the oligarchy.
(2) Are New Republicans worse than New Democrats? Of course they are for reasons too obvious to list.
Where we part, maybe, is here:
(3) Are New Democrats worse than Old Republicans? No. They are essentially indistinguishable from one another.
And that's why Hillary won't get my vote in November. I'm sick of voting for Republicans.
|
Post #410,765
6/6/16 1:42:08 PM
6/6/16 1:42:08 PM
|
No, here's where we part
(2) Are New Republicans worse than New Democrats? Of course they are for reasons too obvious to list. So you will vote for Trump. Because reasons.
|
Post #410,769
6/6/16 1:56:54 PM
6/6/16 1:56:54 PM
|
Because the Democratic Party is also running a Republican.
And I don't think it's a good idea to let the New DNC think they can do that every cycle. If I pull the lever for Donald, it won't be a vote for Donald, but a vote against Hillary and her Old Style Republican Party.
|
Post #410,772
6/6/16 2:01:32 PM
6/6/16 2:01:32 PM
|
Well *that* certainly lets you off the hook, mein Herr.
|
Post #410,766
6/6/16 1:46:36 PM
6/6/16 1:46:36 PM
|
But Hillary isn't a Republican.
Was Eisenhower the same kind of Republican as Lincoln? Was FDR the same kind of Democrat as Jackson? You're getting hung up on labels. In the fall, you should vote for the party (whatever their name) that will move the country the direction you want it to go given the reality of American politics and the American political system. Jill Stein has lots of good sound-bites, but she's got some insane positions as well: * We are in state of emergency; not state of recovery. (Jan 2015) * Romney & Obama are both pro-1% big corporation. (Feb 2012) * Cancel college debt: it's now $35,000 per student. (Jan 2016) * Move school decisions from national to grassroots level. (Dec 2011) * Moratorium on GMOs until they are proven safe. (Jun 2015) * Term limits end guaranteed re-election & lifetime incumbency. (Jul 2015) * Earmarks grease the skids for corruption. (Jul 2015) * Affordable Care Act is neither Affordable nor Caring. (Oct 2012) * ObamaCare was step backward for goal of single payer. (Jan 2012) * Disarm North Korea as part of worldwide nuclear disarmament. (Jul 2015) * Guaranteed jobs for all who need work. (Oct 2015) * Tea Party hijacked by funding from major corporations. (Mar 2012) * Dems & GOP are both sinking ships; one just sinks faster. (Feb 2012) Even if you think she's the best candidate, recognize that she would have almost no support in Congress and would be unable to get almost anything enacted. (An election that resulted in Stein being elected over Hillary wouldn't give Stein any coat-tails.) Purity kills. Vote Team D in the fall. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,768
6/6/16 1:55:09 PM
6/6/16 1:55:09 PM
|
*I'm* getting hung up on labels?
You want me to vote for Democrats for no other reason than they are Democrats.
If Stein were on my ballot, I'd be voting for Stein. The only Old Style Democrat running is Bernie and the New DNC has done everything in its power to quash his effort. I don't vote for labels, I vote for people. Or I used to anyway. I'm seriously considering un-registering.
|
Post #410,771
6/6/16 1:59:15 PM
6/6/16 1:59:15 PM
|
Only label I'm hung up on is "best on on the current ballot"
Which, I believe, is what AScott (and everyone who's not you and Box) has been saying all along.
|
Post #410,774
6/6/16 2:12:01 PM
6/6/16 2:12:01 PM
|
A President can do almost nothing by himself/herself.
You need a President and Congress to be of the same party to get things done in American politics. Parties control the leadership in Congress, and the leadership determines what is considered, what is voted on, etc., etc. You're apparently Ok with black males dying earlier under GOP administrations. The parties aren't the same. Vote for the better party if you want to actually see progress. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #410,770
6/6/16 1:58:08 PM
6/6/16 1:58:08 PM
|
"it was a formative period of her life"
So why do you think Treuhaft took her on as an intern? He was a closet conservative? He was a stupid old man who couldn't recognize a Goldwater Girl when he saw one?
|
Post #410,775
6/6/16 2:15:18 PM
6/6/16 2:15:18 PM
|
I don't think he even knew about her.
We're talking a summer intern in 1971, right? As I understand things, she worked primarily with Burnstein. In her book, Clinton makes only passing reference to her responsibilities at the firm, stating, "I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case."
Burnstein, who was never a communist, is retired now. Reached at his home in California, Burnstein recalled that Clinton was one of the firm's better summer interns: smart and a hard worker.
"She wasn't political at all, that I remember," Burnstein said.
...
Burnstein couldn't recall what specific cases Clinton worked on, but at the time, he said, he had cases where landlords refused to rent to black people, and one in which a group of doctors took umbrage with being asked to sign a "loyalty oath" attesting that they were not communists. But they also did a lot of landlord-tenant, workers' comp, family law and personal injury cases.
"We did poor people's law," Burnstein said.
So why hasn't Clinton talked much about it?
"I think you can figure out why," Burnstein said. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/15/chain-email/shes-no-red/
|
Post #410,798
6/6/16 9:50:28 PM
6/6/16 9:50:28 PM
|
So Treuhaft's stodgy reactionary partner hired her
Gotcha. "We did poor people's law," Burnstein said. Yeah, probably evicting poor people from rent-controlled apartments. Interesting the parts of the piece you neglected to quote: In addition to Treuhaft's former association with the Communist Party, another partner in the firm, Doris Walker, was, and still is, an active member.
"It was who they were," Burnstein said. "It didn't really have a lot to do with the way we practiced law." Clinton must have known about those associations, he said. "It's not like it was a secret." "It was sort of a left-wing firm," Walker said, but most of the lawyers were not communists. To dredge it up now, she said, amounts to little more than red-baiting.
In his biography of Clinton, former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein states that at Treuhaft's firm, "she would be working for one of the most important radical law practices on the West Coast, celebrated for its defense of constitutional rights, civil liberties and leftist causes." Bernstein quotes Treuhaft as saying, "The reason she came to us, the only reason I could think of because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called Movement law firm at the time." [emphasis added] Perfectly consistent with Goldwatergirlism, yes? Actually no, and not consistent with "her character was formed by eighteen," so why do you keep banging this drum? Since your assertion runs so obviously contrary to the facts of the case, I can only assume because you've become so invested in it that no argument or evidence can dislodge you. Fine. But hnick and boxley apart, none of the rest of us will take you seriously. cordially but not seriously,
|
