General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
:large
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Hillary-Warren 2016
please
yes
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)A bid to try and scoop up Warren supporters, and a way to keep Warren from saying all of those nasty things about poor wittle Wall Street, plus Warren would not be in a position to submit anti-corporate and Wall Street legislation, or make those stirring speeches and remarks. Warren would have to toe Hillary's (Jamie's, really) line.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)and why warren will be a great VP for her...........even as democratic and socialistic as FDR programs and policies were, he worked with elite....
no reason to think hillary-warren can't do it
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its how it works...reality on the ground.
djean111
(14,255 posts)crap?) - that "reality" of politics would not help Hillary as much as you think it would. Darling. Putting Warren on the ticket as VP would be to completely stifle her anti-bank issues. Hillary has told the banks that "we got into this together" - no, we did not. The bankers gamble with impunity, taking huge profits along the way, and then when the bottom falls out, the taxpayers pay the bill. Warren does not want that to happen again, I believe Hillary thinks that is okay.
So - reality on the ground - if this is such a cakewalk for Hillary, why would she need Warren for VP to scoop up votes, and why are the HRC supporters like yourself so unrelentingly condescending and unpleasant? Obviously that attitude won't get votes for Hillary. Maybe the Third Way is trying to shut Warren up? That whiny juvenile WSJ thing didn't help. And now the banks are threatening to withhold campaign contributions if Warren does not keep quiet. Fascinating, seeing the ugly machinery behind the smiling facades.
Pretending to be liberal or populist is going to be entertaining. Needing 200 advisers in order to figure out what to say is pathetic. Hillary knows damned well how and why the deck is stacked against the 99%. Her buddies stacked that deck. I wonder how she said that with a straight face. Looks like she is going to co-opt Warren's ideas - for campaign blather. And, we all know reality, my dear - those ideas would be abandoned if Hillary were to be elected.
I am surprised you felt the need to even post your remark, really, since it looks like Hillary will choose a Castro as running mate. Just a chance to be sarcastic and condescending, I suppose.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)75% of Democrats support Hillary Clinton...that's unheard of....the griefers should get used to sarcasm in light of that.
and who used the term "cakewalk"....
she's even the Las Vegas odds on favorite to win the whole thing....by many double digits in fact. Hillary Clinton's odds are 43.7 and her next closest competitor is Jeb Bush at 17%!!!!
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president
I will take THOSE odds thanks!
And guess what...winning elections takes strategy.....part of that is deciding who to put on your ticket that will actually bring insurance votes...its called politics and she is married to the one of the greatest political strategists of all time. Bonus!
djean111
(14,255 posts)Crowing that 75% of Democrats support her - why, no need for Democrats to get out and vote - why bother?
I am never hurt by this stuff. disgusted would be the word. My hair is not on fire, I am not gnashing my teeth.
Oooh! Is griefers the official Hillary word for people who don't like Hillary for president? How cute!
And this is the last reply to you today, the thread-jacking is pointless and obvious and does not accomplish what you think it does.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I mean...I am just not that narcissistic enough to believe that I do.... YMMV
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because I AM!
And I don't like the odds on the rest of the field...
kpete
(71,981 posts)i know, i know, i know
and, I will try to be good
operative word: "try"
kp
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why would I be now?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
boston bean
(36,220 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and her purpose to be there was to improve conditions for women....so Epic Fail:
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment
Obama attacked Clinton’s one-time membership on the board of directors of the world’s largest retailer, saying, “While I was watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”
It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.
But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate , Jan 21, 2008
http://ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm
boston bean
(36,220 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I know YOU aren't a Griefer!
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Your point didn't fit... that is all... it is a supportive t-shirt.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Even if still better than any RWer... but no.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The Democratic Party only wants sparring partners for Hillary, not a viable alternative.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)But if she is the nominee and wins, I'll be fine with it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)