2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered"
Hillary Clinton said that during the campaign. Agree or disagree?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Are you asking people to agree or disagree with the statement itself, or with the assertion that HRC actually MADE the statement?
Please clarify the intent of your post.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)admits that she presents a platform of no hope. No hope for anyone who is not rich, rich, rich.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)We have a House that will deny everything and stall on everything. They control the purse strings. I don't see a Democratic House until 2020. False hopes do no good. Tell people what you can realistically get done with the current Congress we have.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)See below for Obama's excellent retort.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(I see what you did there...)
amborin
(16,631 posts)movements form, mobilize, acquire resources, implement transformation? They start with ideas and ideals that inspire people, that motivate them, that allow them to see alternatives.
Hillary is speaking from her elite standpoint. Elites don't want change; they're terrified of it, it's an existential threat to their grip on power and resources.
She's saying what every dictatorial elite has always said: shut up and acquiesce.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)Thanks for the post leftofcool.
Peace.
LT
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)...Hillary should not be proposing $12 minimum wage or any other liberal policies. The GOP will block it no matter what.
jfern
(5,204 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)... Never mind that EVERY other nation finds a way to do it, the USA is utterly impotent"
This pisses me off, that she gets away with this shit, largely unchallenged by the M$M.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Can you imagine if we didn't have social media to off-set the lock the M$M has
on the airwaves?
Social/Alt. media is the only reason anyone has a clue WTF is going on, and you are absolutely
correct "M$M are her" .. largely thanks to BILL Clinton's green light to media conglomerates
consolidation.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)they can't quite believe what they are hearing at first .. stunned .. then just kinda
pretend it didn't happen .. 
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)Senator Barack Obama
2008
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)is full of suck.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)backward and peopled by such ignorant fuckwads that the powers that be have free reign to continually fuck them over, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. As a 1%er, she understands well how the system operates, and she's fine with it.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Be happy you're not dead.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
Nanjeanne
(4,961 posts)Governing is compromise. But I want to elect someone who dares to paint a picture of what kind of country we could be. That's aspirational.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
puke
puke
puke
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Where are the millions and millions of new voters who are part of the Sanders revolution?? Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on millions and million of new voters who are supposed to be part of the Sanders revolution. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what
That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.
Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.
So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:
What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]
And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.
The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?
It is hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously including the ones you want to talk about unless and until we see some evidence of this revolution.
Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?
beedle
(1,235 posts)Progressives didn't get pissed at Obama because he failed to get things done, they got pissed at him because he failed to even TRY to do things.
If Bernie fails, at least he fails while trying.
Bernie may indeed try to get progressive things done, and fail ... Clinton will just avoid even trying to get anything progressive done, and opt instead to appease the conservatives and Wall St, and move America even further to the right ...
Bernie tries to move America forward .. Hilary tries to be be honest; Both of them are bound to fail at times; One of those failures I can live with.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Most of Sanders' proposals are too extreme to ever have chance of being adopted in the real world https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/21/clinton-its-wrong-for-bernie-sanders-to-make-campaign-promises-he-cant-keep/?postshare=6051456102539673&tid=ss_tw
“I don’t think it’s right to look a person in the eye who’s hurting and needs help and tell them that if they vote for you, you’ll get $5,000 of health care and only have to pay for $500 for it,” Clinton said at Texas Southern University. “You shouldn’t say that unless you can really deliver it.”
“If the numbers don’t add up, it’s wrong to make those promises,” she said at the campaign rally, which drew about 2,000 people. “Because it’s not just about math, it’s about people’s lives.”
Clinton arrived in Texas hours after leaving Nevada with renewed confidence in a strategy and message they hope will take them into the March contests, focused on a broader message that includes the concerns of minority voters while portraying Sanders’s populist focus as too narrow.
“We have to make sure, my friends, that nothing holds you back — not debt, not discrimination, not a deck that’s always stacked for those at the top,” Clinton said. “Bringing down all the barriers that stand in the way of our people and our country is a big job and we’re not going to get it done by making promises that don’t add up.”
I do not think that it is appropriate to make promises or pledges that can not be kept
Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)More from the "No, We Can't!" faction.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)It was foolish then and it is foolish now. Thanks for playing.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)We live in a real world
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Was it the "real world"?
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)Rather I look for one that can actually be a world leader, one who will be there when the country needs them, one who will not bomb the shit out of the world. Someone who isn't going to destroy the government that they work for.
REALITY! they can't get what they promise on the campaign trail.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Face it, Hillary was full of baloney on her attack of Obama in 2008 and most people realized that. Now, in 2016 she's trying the same, tired, defeatist bullshit against Sanders.
What is really sad is that Obama supporters now agree with her. They should be ashamed.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Third Way aims. Nope. So I will be voting accordingly. For Bernie.
A vote for Hillary, IMO, is a false hope that things won't get worse, and a false hope that she will try to make things better for anyone but the 1% and Wall Street. Not buying what she is peddling.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I hear that's a bad thing to do when you're trying to win black voters.
Or maybe that only applies if you're a guy.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)You think Frederick Douglas's goal was to get to Jim Crow laws? Would you say he was a complete failure or would you say the Emancipation was an important step toward equality?
MuseRider
(34,111 posts)or is that her policy? Either way she gives us a scolding. Have we not done enough for you people? We have wars to fight, people to kill and Wall Street to maintain. Hope? You silly people.
I disagree no matter how she puts it. The future with her at the top looks and feels bleak and yes, hope less.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)GWB recently said that 'part of mah job as (fake) President wuz to keep expectations low' so it sounds like they are singing from the same hymn book.
They don't want the majority of Americans to re-engage with our broken political system. They want people to have only the illusion of choice between two narrowly divided candidates. It is fine with them that only 27% of Americans voted in 2014 and that Congress has a 14% approval rating. It keeps our expectations low.
Saving our Social Security money from Wall Street is not a "unicorn" and not a "false hope."
cali
(114,904 posts)
Vinca
(50,278 posts)Settle, people, settle. You're lucky you've got what you've got.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hope to work across the aisle.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Of course his hope to work with republicans was going to fail. Did any Democrat doubt that?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"there are no red states or blue states"
unifying the country was the major premise of his campaign
ladjf
(17,320 posts)America didn't achieve it's greatness thinking like that.
I believe that Sec. Clinton is a political parrot, carrying out the orders of her advisers, primarily her husband.
I predict that she will be unable to win the general election.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,182 posts)Realistically, no candidate is going to be able to fulfill all the promises they make. But I'll respect them for at least TRYING, even if I know the odds are against it.
But a candidate who doesn't even want to TRY? Some "fighter". Tell me why I should waste my time voting for them.
