If he can drive her to the left, he's won.

In legal wording, "indirect expropriation"

is her rhetoric.

be driven left is her rhetoric. Haven't you noticed her already subtly starting to walk back some of her leftier comments now that she thinks she's heading into the GE?

No politician goes left because of popular pressure. Ever. Clinton will say what she has to say, and then if she gets the nomination, she'll snap back to the right before they've even swept up the floors in the convention hall.

'hard right pivot.'

She is a neoconservative hawk when it comes to foreign policy, and a neoliberal 'free marketer' when it comes to economic policy.

In plain English, she will use her office to support the Military Industrial Complex and will formulate and support policies that are driven by Wall Street and corporate lobbies.

If we went back to 1950s Clinton would be a bit to the right of center of the Republican party of that time. If we resurrected FDR, Truman, LBJ, Jack or Bobby, and told them Clinton was a Democrat, they would laugh.

If you told them that she was in the lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, they would be appalled.

I suggest each of these people would endorse Sanders, because his platform is FAR MORE IN LINE with what they fought for during their lives.

And yes, I KNOW LBJ sent 500,000 guys to Vietnam after JFK was killed in the Military Industrial Complex coup-de-etat that happened in November 1963. But he was tricked, pressured into doing that. But he wanted to build schools and hospitals and he actually wanted to wage war on poverty. And that Great Society WORKED until it became economic untenable because the MIC was sucking up more and more and more of the budget. Look at where we are now.

Cause he's so GOOD at it!

GAG!

we can use a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning to determine the following:
1. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) was signed in 1995

2. GATS prohibits signatories from nationalizing things like healthcare lest they be guilty of the formation of a 'service monopoly'

3. In 2005, Clinton stated that during her five-year-old tenure in the Senate, she had 'voted for every trade agreement that has come before the Senate.'

4. In 2011, Clinton gave a speech to the New York Economic Club during which she touted the TPP and took credit for helping in its formation using the term 'economic statecraft.'

5. Clinton supported the TPP until rank and file Democrats, led by Senators Warren and Sanders began to publicly criticize both the agreement itself and the secrecy used in its formulation; when it became apparent that supporting TPP might damage her campaign, she withdrew her support, but only with the qualification 'at this time.'

6. We do not have single payer because establishment Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid in particular, refused in early 2009 to eliminate the 'silent filibuster' rule, and,

7. Single payer was taken off the table using the argument there 'weren't enough votes in the Senate,' but

8. The actual reason was for us to create a single payer 'Medicare for All' system would go against the service monopoly provision of GATS.

So, basically, 'free trade' has not only cost this nation an estimated 650,000 to 800,000 jobs - good ones - the kind with benefits that people used to be able to raise families on and get ahead on, but it cost us the type of healthcare system the people of EVERY OTHER ADVANCED NATION ENJOY.

There is NOTHING good about 'free trade' as the neoliberals like Clinton and other Third Way Democrats are touting.

Were you lying to us then, or are you lying to us now?

If not, what has changed since 2008?

She can't,

as to her,

it would be stealing from the insurance companies.

There is no flexibility there, unless its things like bringing in poor doctors and nurses and teachers and IT staff and so on from the developing world, places like Africa, who will work for minimum wage, and shipping poor people to poor countries when they need more involved medical care.

That is better than no care at all! But there may be a language barrier and serious lack of accountability.

And I was born in the 40's!

How anybody could support Hillary boggles my mind.

She probably sees no path to universal healthcare given the state of the political status we are in as far as congress is concerned. Of course I'd like to have universal healthcare but given the present political climate I don't see how that can be implemented. Unless, of course, democrats take control of the president, the senate and the house. Even then, there is going to be opposition coming not only from the right but also those democrats that are beholden to the medical insurance lobby.

Right now, with Medicare, it's not free and is incomplete cover toage. There is no coverage for eyes or teeth so you need to buy a secondary policy to cover those costs. Being on a fixed budget and doing some math I found that it's not cost effective for eyes and dental insurance coverage, is at best, expensive and I can't afford either one in any case. I am receiving Medicare benefits now having to retire with disability. My social security and pension doesn't even cover the cost of living and I struggle every month to buy adequate food. I sometimes have to decide on buying my necessary medicines or groceries.

I feel that life has little to offer me now. I find myself hidden away in my apartment for days on end because I simply don't have any money to go anywhere. It truly is a sad life situation that I hope that none of you will ever have to live through. My advice is to sock away as much money as you can now if you are still able to. It will pay dividends in your future.

A decent leader would be publicly shaming the republicans every fucking day. To give up without even trying is nothing more than collusion in disguise.

title of clip is so appropriate. She sounds like a meanie...not yelling from conviction, but from anger.

I really don't. (smh)

They signed our right to have affordable healthcare away 20 years ago but didnt tell us. Luckily, it hasn't caught on as well as they thought so they are trying to redo it now with three new really bad FTAs. They won the first battle. For the next six years we have to fight like crazy to prevent their giving away the entire future world to corporations. Basically their deals would roll back the rights gotten in the last half of the 20th century.

You'd think she'd have figured it out. That approach never got Bill under control, and it won't work on the voters either. Picture her conducting cabinet meetings like that! So statesman like! So diplomatic! NOT.

needed medical assistance.

Why the hell did Bill Clinton sign it?

Progressive my ASS...

Thanks for the thread, Baobab.