General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'll tell you in 1 word why I won't vote for Hillary
Chelsea
Chelsea exemplifies everything that is wrong with our system incestuous political patronage. Whatever she may have achieved on her own merits there are plenty more who have accomplished just as much if not more but don't get to become multimillionaires within a few years working for hedge fund management firms (most are still working as no/low pay interns). The media gushes over her for her non-accomplishments and give her air time and favorable articles to do nothing memorable.
So why are all these corporations and media outlets heaping undeserved laurels -- and multi-million dollar commissions -- on Chelsea?
Hillary!
They took care of Chelsea so Hillary would take care of them. There is no other rationale. This is bribe-by-proxy.
I've no doubt I'll be flamed for this thread and those who do so will rely on the "but the GOP!" argument. But the GOP what? GOP control of the media? GOP corporate corruption? GOP cronyism? GOP class advantage over the poor and middle class?
A vte for Hillary is a vote to perpetuate this sad, sick, diseased, cancerous system.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)but this OP is a real turkey. I had to check to be sure I wasn't in Freep Town
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Warpy
(111,256 posts)I seem to remember Margaret Truman's singing career that quickly went south once her daddy was out of politics. Oh, she had a nice voice. It just wasn't an outstanding voice but it was a good idea to pave her way in the industry while her daddy was in office.
I think bribes by proxy are as old as government, going back to tribal chieftain days.
Chelsea Clinton seems like a nice enough young woman and heaven knows she had to put up with enough shit growing up that getting paid for it would be nice. However, she needs to know it will last only as long as Mom is in politics, or threatening to be in politics. Then she'll end up spending more time with her family.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)What do you think of Obamas children? Because they will enjoy exactly the same benefits as Chelsea and Bushs daughters.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Autumn
(45,082 posts)What Hillary has done and will do is. Her child was given evey opportunity to succeed and has done just that. What upsets me is ALL these fucking politicians have children and they have made sure that them and theirs are given everything they need. To pick one to hate on is rather sad and says more about you then her.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Except I'm not picking 1 to reject. I won't vote for any of them. God help us if our electoral choices degenerate to where we are left to choose between the Bush or Clinton dynasties. Seriously. What has Jeb! done except be born a Bush.
Corporations are paying Chelsea for access to and/or favorability from Hillary. That alone is reason to look elsewhere for a candidate and if have no other choice, woe is us.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)I'm not supporting Hillary but Chelsea doesn't enter into my reasons. Did you ever wonder why their kids are handed a silver spoon and ours do without? Because we let them give to their kids by taking from ours hell we fucking voted for them while they did it.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)God help us all if we get another corporatist in the White House.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I've often appreciated your posts and I appreciate this one.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)Something has to be done. We are reaching a tipping point on so many fronts.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We have real candidates, even if we don't know their names yet. People have looked for a thousand excuses for the just-resolved election. One underlying theme was: @#$% the status quo. That breaking with the status quo could come to mean GOP over Democrat screams that we have become insulated in our offerings. No wonder the millenials became the meh!-llenials. Where's the bold young visionary? We still have a few lying around. Right? How sad is it the youngest female elected to Congress is a Republican?
Autumn
(45,082 posts)"Yet, hard working, talented, intelligent people are condemned to a life of much less. Plenty of kids aren't going to make it to the board room except to deliver coffee and donuts for no reason other than they grew-up on the wrong side of town. They'll receive a nominal gratuity, a pat on the head as they are sent back to the crime ridden neighborhood where they will then be handed a flier telling them how important it is to vote for the mother of the girl at the end of the table."
Unfortunately their vision is of poverty low wages and crushing debt.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)corporate purchasing of out politicians! He is for Publicly Funded Elections, getting rid of campaign contributions, and locking the revolving door. If he sees that enough of us would support him he will run for POTUS. when other politicians see his momentum they will jump on the Bandwagon. We have got to put a stop to the Plutocrats and their influence, this is the only rational way. It won't happen if too many vote for Hillary who will perpetuate the system. She is on a first name basis with all if the Wall Street and other corporate players. Our system is broken and the only one talking about running that wants to fix it needs our support. This is the fight of our time and the stakes couldn't be higher! Climate Change will not wait and it will not be properly addressed as long as politicians can be legally bought!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)How much of your issues has he accomplished?
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)have the Bully Pulpit and could be heard. He will point out the corruption. He would bring us much further along and possibly spur people like yourself into fighting with him. It is much better than business as usual. Would it be easy or even likely, no, but it would advance the ball and make it an issue. Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the problem. Bernie would definitely not be the same as what we have had and I believe we have to stop the ability to purchase our government. What do you believe?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He could enjoy a bully pulpit in the Senate but he has to establish a relationship with other members of the Senate to get bills passed. Has he established a relationship to get your issues passed and has he been successful. You likewise have to work towards comprise to get issues changed, it is not do everything as "I" want, this us a ploy of the TP and though they have several members in Congress and have been successful in shutting down the government they don't have much achieved.
Bernie has declared himself a socialist, he can do what he wants but getting elected to POTUS will not happen for him.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Roosevelt's name for the President's ability to be heard by the nation. I admit it's not likely for him to win, but running would help to get his message out. We as Progressives are generally for everything he is saying, and I am sure many conservative voters would like the idea of Publicly Funded Elections, just not Bernie, but it plants the seed. Everyone in America except politicians and the Plutocrats are sick of the corruption of our political system. We will have to agree to disagree.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)great Chess Player. He knows that as an Independent he can bargain for his votes where Dems need his vote. Had he run as a Democrat, his votes would have been taken for granted, see Russ Feingold and how he was simply pushed aside and ignored. Had HE been an Independent he would have had more leverage.
Bernie got a lot for the people who elected him before he cast his vote for the Health Insurance Bill eg. He wanted a PO, National HC, but he is realistic. Once he understood what was going on he did not just 'go along' he decided to trade his vote to get HIS STATE what they needed.
What bills did Hillary or Obama get passed, what connections did they have in the Senate that would translate into getting things done once in the WH? Other than Party loyalty, neither had long term relationships in the Senate.
What a president needs is the PEOPLE behind them. They need to go to the PEOPLE when they want something passed. But our Presidents don't do that. They go to Wall St and the MIC who then twist the arms of the People's Reps while the People know nothing about it.
That is what was so brilliant about FDR. He didn't rely on Congress or the Senate, he went directly to the people each time he wanted to get something passed into law.
There are ONLY a few things that can stop Sen Sanders from making it to the WH, one is MONEY, and people being told 'he can't win'.
Well, I intend to ignore these nay sayers this time and if he runs, I will be working to get him elected.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)dynamics. Change is unsettling, but now with the Plutocrats having almost complete control over our government, courts, and media it is very necessary. People who do not believe we have a problem with the bribery of our politicians, or believe our Democratic Party will fix it if we just elect more of them, are just as deluded as the FOX Bots who only listen to RW media.
treestar
(82,383 posts)At least they are more willing to have corporations regulated. Republicans would gut it all.
Democrats can start wars too, but they don't do it as gleefully and on so little excuse as Republicans.
Until the Greens can win the House/Senate and the WH, Democratic corporatists are a good thing.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There is still an amount of success involved. If Chelsea had grown up like me, I still think she'd have gotten into Harvard or the like. And done pretty well. Maybe not as well as she has, but pretty well. She's got the genes for good brains.
Why not pick on ANY offspring whose parents are successful and do what they can, as any parent would, to help their child/children?
This OP is ridiculous. As you stated, Autumn, there's a plethora of reasons not to vote for Hillary, but blaming Chelsea for what any parent would do, if they could, for their child is silly.
To me Chelsea comes off as a humble person.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)ALL these fucking politicians have children
and they have made sure that them and theirs
are given everything they need
But not all their children are craven opportunists.
See also: Amy Lynn Carter
starroute
(12,977 posts)Carter later became known for her political activism, participating in a number of sit-ins and protests during the 1980s and early 1990s, aimed at changing U.S. foreign policy towards South African apartheid and Central America.[6] Along with activist Abbie Hoffman and 13 others, she was arrested during a 1986 demonstration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst for protesting CIA recruitment there. She was acquitted of all charges in a well-publicized trial in Northampton, Massachusetts. Attorney Leonard Weinglass, who defended Abbie Hoffman in the Chicago Seven trial in the 1960s, utilized the necessity defense, successfully arguing that CIA involvement in Central America and other hotspots was equivalent to trespassing in a burning building. . . .
In September 1996, Carter married computer consultant James Gregory Wentzel, whom she had met while attending Tulane. Carter chose not to be given away, stating that she "belonged to no one". Carter and Wentzel both kept their own family names. The couple moved to the Atlanta area, where they continue to live and focus on raising their son, Hugo James Wentzel (born July 29, 1999). In Atlanta, Hugo attended Woodward Academy, Carter's alma mater. Since the late 1990s, Carter has maintained a low profile, neither participating in public protests nor granting interviews. She is a member of the board of counselors of the Carter Center that advocates human rights and diplomacy as established by her father.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)benefits Chelsea has been given.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And they are far more likely to than Republican descendants.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and all of the kids of the Kennedy clan ... and, well ... every child of prominent parents.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Clinton deregulates Wall Street
Bunches of ill gotten gains result at the cost of the suffering little guy and gal
Chelsea gets a high paying job at Wall Street
Hillary takes money from Wall Street for her speeches (yeh, I bet it's all about her wise words and nothing else)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I understand why you might feel that way - but any potential candidate with children is going to likely have those children have special benefits not available to the rest of us. I don't personally like it; I hate favoritism of any kind, but it's the way the world works, and it's unlikely that any Presidential candidate with children won't have the same situation.
Bryant
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)lamp_shade
(14,831 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Because this is the first time I've seen someone make the argument.
still_one
(92,190 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)NAFTA, Telecommunications Act, repeal of Glass Steagall.
Bubba also speaks about how necessary lobbyists are for lawmakers. Heaven knows, the staffs taxpayers pay for can't 'splain legislation to lawmakers the way lobbyists can. Without lobbyists, lawmakers, many of whom are both lawyers and long time lawmakers, our lawmakers would never get it. So, all you taxpayers and voters, be grateful that lobbyists are as pervasive and influential as they are.
Not to mention that Bubba, more than any other single person, was responsible for turning the Democratic Party into a center right party.
Yeah, in their shoes, I'd be plenty grateful to Bubba.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Hillary Clinton is garbage because to this day she accepts no responsibility for her collaborationist actions under the Bush regime. Totally unrepentant.
Being ruthlessly self-serving is one thing, but to be so arrogant and narcissistic you can't even admit you were that unbelievably wrong a decade later...she is a truly disgusting, immoral person.
Her being on board with Bush's crimes was not feigned. That's simply how she would do things in office - just perhaps with a more dignified vocabulary. As if what this country needs is Richard Nixon Redux.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)I'm really sick of some people acting like his "failure" to politically interfere in the Justice Department is tantamount or even analogous to Hillary Clinton's outright collaborationism with war criminals.
He ended the torture, he ordered Gitmo closed (Congress blocked it), we're back in line with international standards of conduct. His administration follows international law.
I would have liked to see war crimes prosecutions, but a President does not have the authority to order them or block them unless you want military tribunals for the Republican leadership - and good luck with the civil war that would ensue from that, which most of the military would fight on the side of the GOP since their commanders would be in the dock beside Bush and Cheney.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)He has embraced the permanent war footing, he has covered up and excused the one's who committed torture, the NSA collecting data on US citizens and more. You may not like it but it's not a lie.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)What you're saying is just parroting hysterical blog coverage, not a reflection of actual policies and events.
Either quote the Executive Order establishing a "permanent war footing," or retract that claim.
Cite any evidence whatsoever that this President ordered a "coverup" of Bush's torture, or retract the claim. I suppose he released the Torture Memos early in his administration as some sort of fiendish ploy to confuse us all. But we run into such doublethink constantly whenever we entertain such claims as yours.
Quote the President where he ever - EVER - excuses torture, or retract the claim.
As for the NSA, he's the first President in the agency's 62-year history to impose explicit limits on its surveillance activities. Which, I'm sure, he once again did in order to do the exact opposite. Such is the logic of people like you.
But I suppose in your media-driven reality, the fact that Edward Snowden picked this administration to release his information during, and the President hasn't single-handedly attempted to demolish the American national security system against the opposition of Congress and the indifference of the people, that makes Obama some sort of totem of the surveillance state.
Go back to middle school civics and learn what a government is.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)though on making a couple of awesome little dodges. Here are a couple of links for you to ignore. You do know who John Brennen is don't you? The CIA director Obama so strongly defended? Do you know his history? Oh well you can figure it out yourself. Or probably not, but I'm not interested in what you say either.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/does-it-matter-if-john-brennan-was-complicit-in-illegal-torture/266918/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/john-brennan-torture_n_2639525.html
Have a nice day and go right on and prove those links a lie.
here's another link freshly posted
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/21/senator-white-house-simply-doesnt-want-public-know-scope-cia-torture
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)who was never in a position to stop torture in the first place, but was aware of it and failed to go Edward Snowden on the subject under the rule of a mad dictator.
You are just desperate to attack this President. It's sad to see how far ODS can lead someone astray from basic reason.
The only torture this President has ever in any way been associated with is your tortured logic in attacking him.
Pathetic.
I say again: First President in the NSA's 62-year history to impose explicit limits on surveillance.
Released the Torture Memos despite Republican shrieks.
Ordered the closure of Gitmo prison.
Ended the torture.
You have no facts, just innuendo and hate, just like Republicans.
If you're that worked up about it, go get justice yourself on the torturers. Or maybe you're not that worked up about it after all - just worked up enough to smear someone else.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Not to cast aspersions on Senator Rockefeller's telepathic abilities, but can you please explain to us mere mortals why the administration released the torture memos if its plan was to hide torture from the public awareness?
I suppose, absent an explanation of that, you're just going to post some other bit of innuendo. Funny how when you're not limited by actual facts, you never run out of things to say.
That's something you share with the President's Republican critics - an equally liberating disregard for reality.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(should she be the Democratic nominee) ...
REPUBLICANS.
EOM.
asjr
(10,479 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)anyone that would not vote for a candidate because a high profile person's kid is more connected than someone of less prominence is so far detached from reality, as to be unreachable.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Can I bookmark this for the next time you're railing about the 1% or institutionalized white privilege? Really. The hypocrisy is galling.
Nothing in Chelsea's resume shows her to be particularly talented or savvy. She's a member of the lucky sperm club and that is the extent of it. Tens of millions of dollars were showered on her so her mother would luck favorably upon those doing the gifting.
Yet, hard working, talented, intelligent people are condemned to a life of much less. Plenty of kids aren't going to make it to the board room except to deliver coffee and donuts for no reason other than they grew-up on the wrong side of town. They'll receive a nominal gratuity, a pat on the head as they are sent back to the crime ridden neighborhood where they will then be handed a flier telling them how important it is to vote for the mother of the girl at the end of the table.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seeking to change human nature via withholding a vote is quixotic, at best.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The corporations are going to get their money's worth.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)May the oligarchs always be kind to you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Would you have voted for the Kennedys?
They all had trust funds where they never had to work if they didn't want to.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You mean the Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, dead mistresses Kennedys? Hell, why *wouldn't* I leap over myself to vote for THAT?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And, ahhhh, you would have voted for Dick Nixon in 1960?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Would you have voted for the Bay of Pigs and greater involvement in Vietnam?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)No, but since elections are binary choices and Dick Nixon and John Kennedy were the only candidates on the ballot with any chance of winning I would have voted for JFK.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and Nixon. We bitch about being slaves but damned if we don't keep putting the chains back on ourselves.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)She was born into that particular hot mess. Remember her dad was caught fucking around when she was in her early teens, that can't have been good for her with all the cameras and talk all over. Never is for kids, but early teens is a real bad time and Chelsea's must have been dreadful. She seems kind of lost to me, like she doesn't know who she is because she is being told who she is? That sort of thing.
I sort of agree with your topic but picking out just one example is a wee bit off, I think. I feel more sorry for Chelsea than resentful of whatever anyone thinks she has.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Sort of like an arranged marriage, a good child goes along with the wise parents decisions, no matter how unwise those decisions are.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and having Mush Limpet making fun of her looks publicly at that age. I don't see how that can have been anything but awful. Though her parents probably did help her a lot to be strong.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Autumn
(45,082 posts)And it's heart breaking.
asjr
(10,479 posts)from voting for Hillary Clinton--Chelsea--and then added more and more words to that one word--Chelsea. The Black Man also said one word--Republicans and nothing else. He made his point!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)is going to be prominent enough to benefit any children s/he has.
treestar
(82,383 posts)without becoming famous and their kids in the WH will become nationally known. Though adult children fly more under the radar.
Bernie and Elizabeth themselves might have kids. They would become well known too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are benefitted by their parents political/wealth connections.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)only SOME wealthy and powerful folks are to be criticized for allowing their children the advantages of being wealthy and/or powerful.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)chosing not to vote for Clinton, sounds especially ludicrous.
I have no time for that type of idiocy and flagrant Republican assistance.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)When the hole is too deep you stop fucking digging, not double down on excavation.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)we were talking nominated persons on the ballot as POTUS.
But you go ahead and continue to rail against Hillary in the now, I actaully don't care. However, if you chose to continue the railing if she become the Dem Nominee, you can help the Reps bury the Dems all you want but I won't have time for that idiocy either.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)on their own as they would leave the people.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)you just proved part of the OPs argument correct
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)where the OP said: "I've no doubt I'll be flamed for this thread and those who do so will rely on the "but the GOP!" argument."
Then you chime in with: "I'll tell you in 1 word why I WILL vote for HRC ... REPUBLICANS"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Okay.
Damned recognizing of reality!
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)When the reality of HRC shoving the TPP down our throats, continuing drone strikes, continuing wall street bailouts, asking for mid-east war #N is reality, your ability to close your eyes and plug your ears while saying "shes not a REPUBLICAN!" over and over will come in handy for you.
For me, not so much
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the OP's "1 word" reason for not voting for HRC?
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)It has to do with your response to the OP. That is what I was replying to. You really do keep eyes and ears turned off...
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I see nothing friggin' wrong with that! I don't care how corporatist the Dems are, they can win and they are not Republicans. Geez, after living through 8 years of Dumbya people can still raise that old complaint? It gets them nowhere!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)tblue37
(65,342 posts)Al Gore had nominated justices for the seats occupied by Alito and Roberts.
Nor would Gore's USSC appointees have gutted the Voting Rights Act, or allowed complicated and expensive voter ID hoops to become the new poll taxes to keep minorities and the poor from exercising their right to vote!
People can be so darned obtuse about what is at stake.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Hillary's daughter has advantages that I do not, so I'll show her ... I won't vote for HRC!"
End result ... the daughter will still have more advantages AND we get a gop whitehouse.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)sketchy
(458 posts)actually her form of rebelling against her parents, and what she felt they stood for.
She said it didn't work, and that she was drawn to leave that world, and start doing public service. I think she said something to the effect of, "Turns out I am my parents' daughter."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)from the sunny hills surrounding San Francisco in Marin County from his beautiful home undoubtedly bought - in part - from proceeds of doing his bit in playing investors for suckers.
Or again, like that woman from the NY Times who recently repented, saying she'd withheld a story under pressure from the State Department, or the NSA or someone in the US bureaucracy.
Same story, same shit, different day.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Turns out there is even more money in 'public service' for the Clintons combine with hedge fundery.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)sketchy
(458 posts)to sum it up
Quackers
(2,256 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Those two are presumptive disqualifiers.
Though I do find it interesting that Jimmy Carter's daughter Amy married a regular guy - an IT consultant apparently - and lives quietly in Atlanta, working with the Carter Center.
Bill and Hillary got all the ducks in a row so that their daughter would be safely married off to a tenth-percenter.
Kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it.
dawg
(10,624 posts)the other guys nominate Hitler.
I'd be willing to vote for a third-party candidate if one were actually viable. But until that day comes, I'm voting for the best of the two candidates offered up by the two major parties. In my lifetime, that has always been the Democrat.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)The glitter-shitting- pony brigade can chant Sanders(not A Dem ) , Warren (not running) all they want. If either changed their mind , and ran in Primary , and won.....I'd vote for them in 2016, no question about it.
Somehow the purity council forbids the reverse scenario .
dawg
(10,624 posts)I'll almost certainly trot down to the polls to vote for Sanders in the primary (or Warren, if she decides to run). I don't want to have to vote for Hillary in the general. I don't think she is inevitable, or that she is any more electable in the general than Warren would be.
But I'll gladly vote for her in the general election.
President Obama has done a ton of things to piss me off. Drones. Failure to stop abuses by NSA. Proposing Chained CPI. Surrendering Public Option without a fight.
But he has basically been a good President.
And I have no illusions at all that things would not have been a hundred times worse under President Romney or McCain. (And the Republicans are likely to nominate someone even worse next time.)
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Would I love to see an America where 60+ percent of the electorate would vote for a Bernie Sanders worldview?...you bet your ass. However , I'm sad to say a third of America is Teahaddist/FauxLovers,middle third is at best centre- right , and remixing third is center-left and Liberal/Progressive. I want (D) next to my president when that lot vote.
dawg
(10,624 posts)The American electorate hates liberals. They've had that drilled into them for fifty years.
But 90% of them don't really understand the policy issues that liberals and conservatives argue about. On issue after issue, the American people support liberal positions, just not liberal politicians.
Sadly, they mostly just want to vote for a tall, rich, white, straight, Christian man with a happy-looking family. Rather than learn all the details of the issues, they take the easy way out, and vote for the kind of guy they trust. And that is the kind of guy they trust and feel confident with.
We have to burn through those prejudices. But it is a serious mistake to think the electorate is conservative on the issues, when, actually, they vote more on their "gut feel" than anything.
We need to find a way of giving them a better "gut feel" about us, without compromising any of our principles in the process.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Purest form .
With a schmeer of Toopid for actual reason stated.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And then remind me what the plan is to overcome the nepotism and patronage that is choking government for and by the people.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)might be. But if she is , go ahead and hand the Presidency to Ted Cruz , then we'll see about " both parties are the same" or whatever lameass self-defeating nonsense you'd prefer.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But you still haven't answered what Chelsea did to earn her money or how perpetuating the system of patronage will defeat the system of patronage.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)You pick Chelsea? A well-adjusted young lady who had to deal with idiots like John McCain calling her a dog when she was about 13? Someone who, regardless of her circumstance, has actually gotten off her ass and given her time to the Clinton Global Initiative?
I guess you think the Bush twins are good role models and the Kardashians are average Americans?
I totally disagree with your rationale.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)I say, lay off the kids. I can't imagine what Sasha and Malia must hear or read about their parents; although I think they're going to grow up to be awesome well-adjusted women thanks to good parenting and a wonderful grandmother.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I do understand that it follows from both fear of family dynasties and dislike of elite treatment of those born to elite status
I'm rather more concerned about Sec Clinton's limited ability to explain economic dynamics in terms of Keynesian principles.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)I believe it was Limbaugh who ("accidentally" compared her to the family dog and McCain who said she was the love child of Janet Reno and HRC. Imagine getting that kind of national bullying (by adults!) when you were in you preteen and teen years.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Sorry, didn't have time to "google" before my original post, so thank you for the clarification.
But, as you indicate, I think you got the gist of my post - that being that it certainly would have been difficult to have people making insults like those about you publicly in your preteen and teen years.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)It's pathetic that these adult bullies (of a child!) are still considered esteemed Republican spokesmen. (Not surprising... but pathetic.)
longship
(40,416 posts)Neither one makes any sense.
I won't vote for Hillary because... CHELSEA????
I am sorry. It is an inane, stupid argument.
Sorry.
still_one
(92,190 posts)Response to still_one (Reply #53)
longship This message was self-deleted by its author.
longship
(40,416 posts)still_one
(92,190 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Barons whose wealth will be inherited for doing nothing more than being born into it...the Koch brothers and their ilk. Why, because they all go out of their way to actually do things to hurt people and trample on the little folks while they themselves feed at the Federal troughs in multiple ways. And they have been doing it for years....How old is Chelsea?
longship
(40,416 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)A bribe by proxy.
longship
(40,416 posts)That is an odious claim.
Again, I would no more inflict the sins of the parents on their progeny than I would inflict the sins of the progeny on the parents.
The argument is completely without any evidence, other than idiocy.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Did she invent something? No. Did she turn a failing company into a market success? No.
She "traded" hedge funds. Except neophyte traders spend their early careers in the pits, not raking in truckloads of money.
A hedge fund manager will make between 0.3% to 0.7% for the money they manage. Chelsea is worth $15 million. Assuming a mid-level commission rate of 0.5% y'all are telling me and every other sane person that some multi-national corporate firm is going to give a neophyte fresh out of college THREE BILLION DOLLARS to manage.
Yeah. She earned it all by herself.
longship
(40,416 posts)Or the contrary. Either one is odious.
I am done here. And BTW, I am no HRC fan.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)political patronage. If you're saying I'm imputing that to Chelsea, then -- yeah -- you would be right but then you're still admitting the premise of the OP that Hillary is part of the corrupt system where corporate access to the halls of power are bought and paid for.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)You know, " target="_blank">Bristol Palin -- high-school dropout, knocked up at 17, shacking up with a series of losers . . .
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)rewarding scions for their personal ability.
rock
(13,218 posts)11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)a candidate whose children are currently residing in a refrigerator box and eating out of dumpsters because their parents threw them out on their ass.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The corporations will get their money's worth.
treestar
(82,383 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)From almost birth was to be favored, whatever she wants to do is available to her.
Chelsea is like that.
So are Sasha and Malia.
It's unfair to the rest of us in the purest sense, but just not worth it. They and their parents work for the betterment of the rest of us,, unlike Republicans. I think you tried to veer that off because you know it's a good argument.
Meghan McCain and any Bush daughter will have the same privileges. But not do as much good for others with them.
Your argument would discount the Kennedys. That's paralyzing our most powerful allies.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Buncha malcontents, riding to fame and wealth on the hems of mommy and daddy's coattails. What did they ever accomplish?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)but glad you are not voting for Hillary. I won't be either if she runs. I live in CT. If Hillary is the DEM nominee, recent trends suggest the DEM will win CT, so I am free to vote for another candidate. No harm, no foul.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Wow...I mean Jesus Fuckin' Christ...
Here's a fun game for you: Pick any career politician from any party with children older than 20, and see how many are working dream jobs for a high salary...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That explicitly says she isn't the only one. She's one of the elite, insular aristocracy.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)whether or not you vote for Hillary...
I mean damn...You could have listed any number of legit Hillary-related reasons to not vote for her, and I probably would agree with you...
If you want to curse the "system", then fine...But at the end of the day the Clinton family has to swim in the same water as the rest of Washington, so until the system is changed, why shouldn't they try to make the most of it??
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)escort the patrons to mommy's desk in the Oval Office.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Because I'm guessing that person's shit will have to be twice as clean as anyone else's...I wish you luck in finding that candidate...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So far criticism of the OP has ranged from "We must sell-out!" to -- whatever it is you're offering.
Not one detractor, though, can explain what Chelsea has done to merit her tens of millions of dollars or the TV and magazine time heaped upon her. Those kissing up to Chelsea are making down payments for access to her mother.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)Because if you did then you know as a parent you want them to be more successful than you were and have all the privileges you can provide for them to do that. No Parent thinks, damn I want my kid to struggle and I won't do shit to help them, every parent wants their kids to have a better life and be more successful than they were.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And yet how much internet ink is spilled here at DU complaining about the fact the 1% has built an insulated aristocracy. Here you are, admitting that this is exactly what happens and yet then implying that if we vote for Hillary -- who you just said has done this very thing -- she will in some way change the rules that insulate the patronage, corruption, nepotism and materialist greed.
dilby
(2,273 posts)She worked nights at a Waffle House when I was in Elementary school to put food on the table for 3 kids and herself through beauty school. She cuts hair for a meager living now and she is damn proud that all 3 of her kids went to college and take home annual salaries that would take her 5 years to make. For my mom us kids are the 1% because we came from absolute poverty to secure upper middle class lives and I want my kids to do better than I did. I had to go to a State College while my kids will hopefully attend Ivy League schools, I worry about investments and retirement, I want my kids to not have to worry about any of that and be setup. I don't want my kids to be spoiled brats but I would be proud of any of my kids if they turned out like Chelsea.
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)Haven't read anything as petty and irrational in a long time. Chelsea Clinton is extremely intelligent, articulate, well-mannered, and, for all I can tell, a really decent person.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Maybe I will make a list one day.
kcr
(15,316 posts)You took it just a step too far, there. You needed to reign it in a little. Rookie mistake.
michaz
(1,352 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy (hopefully 2020 I will have 4 or less reasons)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)cry baby
(6,682 posts)(and everyone else that will suffer in a republican administration) will understand that you didn't vote for Hillary because "Chelsea".
I'm sure they'll thank you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)With that, I agree. The 1% expect quite a bit from every POTUS. And, while they may not get as much s they want, they usually do get quite a bit from every President.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Who blames the kid?
niyad
(113,302 posts)sounds VERY personal.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)niyad
(113,302 posts)have you posted similar about the bush twins? or the romney tribe? perhaps I just missed them.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But thanks for proving my point that Hillary would just be more of the same. I guess the question then becomes: how do you sleep knowing that?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I more than understand a reluctance to vote for a popular Democrat--but not the willingness to throw an election to a different dynasty or two. I'm not there.
Yet.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)Lots of kids take advantage of their parents jobs or connections. I don't like it any better than anyone else but it happens all the time, and believe it or not Democrats do it. I don't blame Hillary for helping her daughter.
I'm not "flaming you" just disagreeing. Lots of reasons not to vote for Hillary other than this one.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)She wasn't a hedge fund manager, she was the bagman for those wanting access to Hillary.
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)As to whether there is anything wrong in specific instances is a matter of personal perspective.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)This is only anecdotal information and it's a few years old -- but -- in the late 1990's I worked for a non-profit organization in Central Appalachia the repaired and built homes for very-low income families. Church youth groups came from all over the country to volunteer.
Clinton was President and the family were members of Foundry United Methodist Church in DC. Chelsea came one summer as a volunteer with her church youth group. I was responsible for overseeing the work being done on homes in two counties and, as such, I encountered her youth group a few times. She was a typical teenager who was serious about what she was doing, well-like by the others, and impressive in the fact that she didn't expect any special treatment.
She graduated from high school with honors, went to Stanford on a scholarship, graduated from there after a program that combined classroom and real-world. She's well-read, traveled, and mature.
I maintain contact with people at Foundry; the Clinton's stop by there for services when they are in DC and the people I know there are unanimously Chelsea supporters because she's a good person.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Hekate
(90,681 posts)You have no personal knowledge of this young woman's character, yet you condemn her with the same ferocity usually reserved for the elders of the Bush and Koch families.
You invited flames. This is not a flame.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)brooklynite
(94,547 posts)It's like there was a dynasty or something!
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)sketchy
(458 posts)This kind of attack doesn't sit right with me either.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)SunDrop23
(2,109 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
If I believed that Hillary had taken a bribe-by-proxy and delivered what was paid for, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But I don't believe that. I think that Hillary would take the same political positions (which I personally consider much too corporatist) even if Chelsea had entered a convent and renounced all contact with secular society.
You imply a causal link but I don't see the evidence for it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)they are just so awesome?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'll be glad to answer your question: I wasn't aware of her being given $3 billion to manage, but I certainly agree with your general point that Chelsea Clinton has received advancement and favor because of who her parents are. Her gig at NBC is the notable example that I'm familiar with. If some hedge fund rocketed her over numerous applicants who were objectively more qualified, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
My question, however, is about Hillary's decisionmaking, not about Chelsea's or NBC's or a hedge fund's. If Chelsea were in a convent and disdaining any favors traceable to her family lineage, do you think Hillary would be doing anything different in terms of policy or politics?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No.
Martin Eden
(12,866 posts)IWR is my one word reason why I will NEVER vote for Hillary in a Democratic primary.
Well, it's actually an acronym for 3 words: Iraq War Resolution.
There are several reasons why Hillary is far from my preferred Democratic candidate for POTUS, but she failed my only unshakeable litmus test -- in Oct 2002 she voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.
That's a deal breaker for me, period.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)Then John Kerry and liberal hearthrob John Edwards did the same.
Martin Eden
(12,866 posts)I like Joe, but I can't support anyone in a Dem primary who gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq.
Here at DU we knew it was a pack of lies and that it would not be a cakewalk leading to a flowering of pro-American democracy.
A US senator who didn't know that is inexcusably incompetent. More likely they were on board with the agenda or were just going with the prevailing political winds at the time because it made them look "tough" on foreign policy.
That was when the Democratic Party -- and our country -- desperately needed strong leadership to stand up and put a stop to the catastrophe before so much blood and treasure was flushed down the drain.
I simply cannot excuse Hillary or anyone else who didn't at least make an effort to stop it.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)She voted for war, I'm not voting for her. It's that simple.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)those Bush daughters have turned out pretty well. Involved and compassionate.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We're trading democracy for aristocratic dynasties.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Much to the embarrassment of the President, Mary Todd Lincoln prevented Robert Lincoln from joining the Union Army until shortly before the war's conclusion.[5] "We have lost one son, and his loss is as much as I can bear, without being called upon to make another sacrifice," Mary Todd Lincoln insisted to President Lincoln. President Lincoln argued "our son is not more dear to us than the sons of other people are to their mothers."
Food for thought
Township75
(3,535 posts)While I am skeptical any dem is going to sit out an election rather than vote for Hillary, what you wrote about is one reason I don't want her in. The country is becoming more and more about making a few wealthy families even richer. And we have plenty here that are going to be excited and donate time and money to do it and then cry when there is a new free trade agreement or war or bailout or lack of justice.
The only families that matter are the well established rich politically connected ones. Not yours!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sometimes we have a thought that is stupid as fuck and the intellectual capacity to rethink and pull back on it. I have failed that second part before, just as you have here. Has still been great for a laugh. Maybe McCain will run again so you will get the first daughter you have more respect for.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)your only defense is to invoke yet another political dynasty.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I know you weren't endorsing them but nonetheless I wish someone could tell me WHY Meghan is famous. She's as meritless as Chelsea and yet people trip over themselves to shower graces upon her. To what end? To get poppy's approval.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It wouldn't in any way. Pretty clear I was only saying if McCain ran AGAIN, you would have a first daughter to fawn over. This is your criteria. Not mine, or apparently anyone else's.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Theocracy.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
FSogol
(45,484 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)We are supposed to be thrilled by it too.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)our aristocrats are better than their aristocrats.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Only cuz she's a Bush!
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)That's my fear with all of this "it's already Hillary", and "only Hillary can win" stuff already going on. What about Bengazi? Whether or not there is more, people will hear about it and get sick of it, and just will not want her because they'll be so tired of hearing about it they won't care if it's true or not.
Let's really think about our primary choices...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)she ordered a Merlot with fish. They won't pull skeletons out of the closet, they'll tear down the walls until there is no more closet. but that's kind of another issue.
The part that makes her unpalatable to Progressives is the largesse heaped on her and her progeny. From ridiculous speaking fees for boilerplate speeches to the ridiculous notion Chelsea could earn multi-millions fresh from MBA school the red flags scream patronage.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)"they'll be so tired of hearing about it" is actually a more pathetic reason than "Chelsea has been successful". I've seen decent arguments against Hillary here, but yours and Nuclear Unicorn's aren't even laughable. They're wilted and limp.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)But I do hope to see every poster that is ripping the OP a new one show as much outrage next time someone disses Luke Russert's fast track to success.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)tones of envy.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Iraq
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Tells you all you need to know about her.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)This is absolutely the most ridiculous, hilarious, inane, convoluted, bitter, envy-filled, ROFL-worthy post Ive ever seen on DU and given some of the other stuff Ive seen on this site over the years, the competition in all of those categories is pretty steep.
Its a damned shame that the DUzy Awards have been abandoned, because this mindless diatribe would have qualified you for a Lifetime Achievement Award.
This post has all the intellectual depth of a Sarah Palin speech, all the tear-inducing drama of a Glen Beck interview, all the factual underpinnings of a Fox-News report, and all the impact of a blog that has been in existence since the dawn of the internet and still has zero views.
All I can say in response is
stone space
(6,498 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Initech
(100,070 posts)You think Congress is completely ruthless and nasty to Obama? They'll be 100 times worse under Hillary.
think
(11,641 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:40 AM - Edit history (1)
jmo...
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...that's about all there is to say about that.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Bloomberg was going to appoint Caroline to be Commissioner of Something-or-other in the city ED dept. Turned out she didn't have any qualifications. Or background. Or experience.
Then they wanted to airlift her into an open US Senate seat via appointment. I guess it was Clinton's seat, ironically enough.
Good god. What a system.
And these are the *Democrats*.
world wide wally
(21,743 posts)House
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Imagine a world with no Franklin Roosevelt, Robert Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy.