If Hillary had charisma

Post #420,140 by drook 9/5/17 1:31:15 PM 9/5/17 6:28:47 PM Reply	If Hillary had charisma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlyBfInS7ec -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 5, 2017, 06:28:47 PM EDT If Hillary had charism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlyBfInS7ec -- Drew Collapse All History
Post #420,142 by mmoffitt 9/5/17 1:44:56 PM 9/5/17 1:44:56 PM Reply	It's the unconscionable lies about what Bernie promoted that troubled me. And they're repeated here. "Free junior and senior college tuition for families earning under 125K per year." That isn't "pie in the sky" like she and her supporting cast of troglodytes maintain. It was what I HAD in 1977. If it's impossible now, in the richest country in the world, how in piss did the same country pull it off in 1977? Hell, his position on that is a compromise FFS. There was no cap on family incomes back when I took advantage of free tuition. You know why she said that's "pie in the sky"? Because unlike 1977, her criminal friends on Wall Street make BILLIONS of dollars lending money to students and by damn, she's not going to lift a finger to take that away. Not when she gets 225K/hour to talk to her criminal pals, she isn't. She needs to GO THE FUCK AWAY before she destroys what's left of the Democratic Party. This book doesn't help. Quoting moronic Facebook posts does not help. Embracing the Democratic Party's principles that made the Democratic Party great will help. For clarity, that'd be the principles of the Democratic Party she and her husband damaged severely or destroyed outright. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,146 by Another Scott 9/5/17 2:05:16 PM 9/5/17 2:05:16 PM Reply	The butt-hurt is amazing. She's not running for anything. Calm down. ;-) You might want to consider that things are very different now than they were when you (or I) were in College. Martin works for one of the University systems in California: Martin says: February 27, 2017 at 3:21 pm @schrodingers_cat: Yeah. The challenge with something like free college is that we don’t treat higher education as a fungible commodity. We recognize (usually wrongly, but not always) that Harvard is great, and UC San Diego is very good, and Bowling Green is decent, and Cal State Chico is okay, even when studying the same degree. Now, nobody has EVER measured whether students learn more or come out better prepared among those institutions. For all we know Chico has the best educational attainment of them all. So, if we make them free, how do we decide who goes to each? I will tell everyone straight up that nobody admits students the way that you think we do. We turn down quantitatively better students for quantitatively worse ones and do it on a large scale. It’s blindingly obvious if you’ve ever read admissions files (10s of thousands in my case) that the economic circumstances that a child grows up in has a massive impact on their readiness for college. A so-called ‘meritocracy’ for college admission would push the rich kids to the top and the poor kids to the bottom on a scale that you don’t see in any other public arena. Assuming that free college increased the number of students applying (which is daunting as most of the UC campuses each get 100K apps per year just at the undergrad level) then that stratification would only get worse. One equalizing factor now is that we can scholarship up the poor kids to make our public university more attractive than it is to the rich kids who will need to pay. We’d lose that important lever to providing access to as broad a cross-section of the state as possible. Now, the solution to this is to increase supply, but in California that would mean adding somewhere in the neighborhood of a million seats to the higher ed systems to meet qualified demand. I’m cool with that – but that’s 30 major universities, and they don’t get built quickly, and they don’t get built inexpensively. There’s a lot of really difficult challenges with doing this that I think are worth tackling, but they can’t get glossed over. They really matter a lot. If you don’t do the expansion, I guarantee that minority and first generation access to college will be gutted with a free college plan. The group you’re most trying to help gets locked out. Perez realizes this and went down the means testing route, which is one way to address the problem, just not the one that young people want. They want the massive build-out by taxing us old rich people. I’m fine with that approach, but someone in the Democratic party needs to package that and sell it, and nobody is. So what does Bernie do to address the all-too-real problem that Martin brings up? As usual, Bernie had a good slogan, but he has no understanding of how the world actually works so what he says he wants can never happen the way he says it must. So he plays Purity Man and snipes from the sidelines when nobody whose support he needs joins him. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #420,149 by mmoffitt 9/5/17 3:15:48 PM 9/5/17 3:15:48 PM Reply	Yep, they're certainly different all right. Delta 1: Top Income Tax Rate 1977 Married Filing Jointly: 70.0% over 203,200 2013 Married Filing Jointly: 39.6% over 440,876 https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/ Delta 2: John Sperling opens University of Phoenix in 1976 Percentage of students in for-profit universities Early 1970's: 0.2% 2012: 12% http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/phoenix/history-of-for-profit-higher-education.html Delta 3: Unions destroyed. No unions = free reign on wage savagery. Combined with "for-profit" education and the shareholders who must be paid, we get the below. We don't fix any of that crap "incrementally." bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,150 by Another Scott 9/5/17 3:17:36 PM 9/5/17 3:17:36 PM Reply	And yet Hillary had a workable plan to do just that. Woulda been great, huh.
Post #420,152 by mmoffitt 9/5/17 3:20:43 PM 9/5/17 3:20:43 PM Reply	By continuing to pay the banksters? bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,155 by Another Scott 9/5/17 4:10:24 PM 9/5/17 4:10:24 PM Reply	You know she answered that, in detail, months ago... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/ HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #420,158 by mmoffitt 9/5/17 4:14:02 PM 9/5/17 4:14:02 PM Reply	Like I said ... Borrowers will be able to refinance loans at current rates, providing debt relief to an estimated 25 million people. They’ll never have to pay back more than 10 percent of their income, and all remaining college debt will be forgiven after 20 years. Continue to pay the banksters, IOW. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,160 by mmoffitt 9/5/17 4:28:48 PM 9/5/17 4:28:48 PM Reply	Please don't misunderstand me. We want the same thing. We want Drumpf defeated. I'm warning (again) that resurrecting Hillary from the dustbin of history and continuing to parrot her self-serving, "I would have won PA, WI, OH and MI had it not been for that bastard Bernie, his misogynistic supporters and all the permanent damage he did to me" is doing nothing other than recreating the type of divisiveness in the Democratic Party that gave us Drumpf the first time. Proceed at your own (and my and everyone else's) peril. If we learned anything from 2016, it should be that the people who are naturally Democrats will not support a status quo apologist for Wall Street anymore. Those kind have no winning message and we should send them all (her included) into the woods to live out their days in the largess they "earned" from their contributions to the welfare of the residents of Manhattan. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,164 by Another Scott 9/5/17 6:18:12 PM 9/5/17 6:18:12 PM Reply	She lost because of Comey. Bernie had been a non-factor for months.
Post #420,174 by mmoffitt 9/6/17 8:11:07 AM 9/6/17 8:11:07 AM Reply	I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the almost half of Democratic voters who supported him. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,175 by Another Scott 9/6/17 8:23:08 AM 9/6/17 8:23:08 AM Reply	Why not wait and read the book before making so many assumptions about it?
Post #420,176 by mmoffitt 9/6/17 8:37:43 AM 9/6/17 8:37:43 AM Reply	She's got enough Wall Street money. She doesn't need mine. ;0) Plus, it's well past time for the Democratic Party to move back to the Left from the Clinton/Obama era. She doesn't have anything of consequence to say. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,177 by Another Scott 9/6/17 8:44:57 AM 9/6/17 8:44:57 AM Reply	Except that she got millions of more votes than Bernie or Donnie. Yeah, she's a nobody....
Post #420,178 by mmoffitt 9/6/17 9:41:03 AM 9/6/17 9:41:03 AM Reply	And lost. I'm telling you, listening to her is going to result in a Trump re-election. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,183 by Another Scott 9/6/17 1:18:21 PM 9/6/17 1:18:21 PM Reply	She's.Not.Running.Again. Trump is the enemy. The next election is in about 61 days. How is beating up on Hillary (still) helping to defeat the Teabaggers this November? Priorities, man! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #420,184 by mmoffitt 9/6/17 1:32:33 PM 9/6/17 1:32:33 PM Reply	That.Doesnt.Mean.She.Cant.Influence.The.DNC.And.Set.The.Tone.Of.The.Next.Primary. Agreed on the enemy, though. ;0) bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,185 by Another Scott 9/6/17 1:57:51 PM 9/6/17 1:57:51 PM Reply	(sigh) What should she do to make you happy? If she's such a Corrupt™ Lying Liar then there really isn't anything she could do, is there? >;-p Trump's destroying the country, the national government, and literally risking the lives of millions of people here and all over the world, and you're spending days yelling about a memoir she wrote. :-/ Yes, we agree Trump is the enemy. I (seriously) wish we agreed more on effective ways to fight him. You'll never convince me that beating up on Hillary and the DNC is the way forward. But, we've been through that before too... Cheers, Scott.
Post #420,186 by mmoffitt 9/6/17 4:57:14 PM 9/6/17 4:57:14 PM Reply	There is something she could do. She could go quietly into that good night. How is re-hashing the 2016 debacle in a light most positive for her going to help us defeat Trump? To the extent that you and I can find common ground over the 2016 election, I believe we'd agree that for the general, the Democratic Party was split, that there was far too much rancor between the supporters of the two running for the Democratic nomination and that rancor carried into the general and caused a catastrophe to occur. We know all that. There is no good to be gained from reliving it and I say if Hillary really wanted to help the next Democratic candidate defeat Trump, she wouldn't rekindle that rancor among the Democratic troops by making statements in a memoir like, "I don't know if it bothered Bernie or not ...", "Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros [note: a fiction invented by her campaign], took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist", "...his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign." How does that help re-unify the Democratic Party? It doesn't. The continued vilification of nearly 1/2 of all Democratic Party primary voters is not a winning strategy to defeat Trump. Rather than continue to attempt to divide the Democratic Party, she should just STFU. She is, after all, the one that lost to Trump in the first place. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,187 by Another Scott 9/6/17 5:19:07 PM 9/6/17 5:19:07 PM Reply	Read more carefully. "Some".
Post #420,194 by mmoffitt 9/7/17 8:30:22 AM 9/7/17 8:30:22 AM Reply	Conceding the point that her book is unhelpful? If so, great. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,201 by boxley 9/7/17 6:29:35 PM 9/7/17 6:29:35 PM Reply	millions? really? here is how you can help https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4412811/tens-of-thousands-of-witches-around-the-world-join-forces-every-month-to-cast-a-binding-spell-on-donald-trump-and-protect-the-world-from-his-actions "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #420,212 by mmoffitt 9/7/17 9:07:03 PM 9/7/17 9:07:03 PM Reply	Good $DEITY, Bill. Linking the Washington Times AND the Sun? I thought better of you. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,218 by CRConrad 9/8/17 9:58:09 AM 9/8/17 9:58:09 AM Reply	You did? Still? Why?
Post #420,229 by Ashton 9/8/17 6:19:12 PM 9/8/17 6:19:12 PM Reply	I'm sure I could get you a free-subscription to 'Human Events', Bill by invoking My Gramma's name in their records, say. They might even send along their most popular welcoming gift: the decorative hand-crafted small-Urn of Hemlock. (A handy sprinkle ..on cocktails of unBelievers, met en passant :-) Perhaps that will complete your Major-sources library? ('less'n you already Gots that.) er, ;^>
Post #420,234 by boxley 9/8/17 9:54:45 PM 9/8/17 9:54:45 PM Reply	naw, ya gotta remember the wild carrot stalks are not fuzzy altho shroom identification is a little harder "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #443,548 by CRConrad 10/15/23 7:54:15 AM 10/15/23 7:54:15 AM Reply	I'm beginning to think charisma sucks. Yeah, sure, charisma gets politicians elected... Exactly the kind of politicians you later find out you shouldn't have elected. Maybe charisma is a trait that goes hand-in-hand with wanting to get to power, as in that old saying most often ascribed to... Ben Franklin, I guess. (What, me stirring up old news? Yeah, can't recall if I watched the video back then; gone now, anyway.) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #443,549 by crazy 10/15/23 2:35:26 PM 10/15/23 2:35:26 PM Reply	Anybody who wants to be in charge should not be in charge At least as part of a political system.
Post #443,551 by CRConrad 10/16/23 3:31:25 AM 10/16/23 3:31:25 AM Reply	Yup, that's the one I meant. "Any man who desires the office of President...", or however it went. Maybe that desire is correlated with what we call "charisma"; maybe what people sense is the... "drive", or whatchamacallit? Definitey, of course, correlated with the kind of fake "charisma" that is intentionally acquired and rehearsed for that exact purpose. And if the desire is half-subconscious, how often does that (semi-?)fake "charisma" come off as genuine even to us who consider ourselves world-wise cynics who of course easily see through shit like that? Maybe more often than we'd like to think... -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #443,558 by static 10/18/23 3:07:54 AM 10/18/23 3:07:54 AM Reply	Douglas Adams basically said that. The whole point of the President of the Galaxy in The HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy was to be a flamboyant figurehead with no power. He explicitly said so in the text. Several times. Terry Pratchett also explored it in various ways in his Discworld novels, although much less obviously. Wade.

Welcome to IWETHEY!