jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (89 posts)

H. Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her running mate: I am not happy.

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 4 months ago

    I would have liked to have more of a reason to support the Democratic ticket beyond the fact that I strongly dislike and distrust Trump and Pense. Clinton with her recent VP pick hasn't given me one.

    While Caine is more of a centrist and safe choice, the fact is that there are so many of us disaffected Sandernistas. Clinton may have been smart to throw a bone to solarge a group with a VP pick who is what she is not. I go to the polls lukewarm, too many of us disaffected ones may sit this out, making the danger of a Trump presidency all the more real. Instead of doubling down on more Hillary Clinton, she should be paying more attention to her left flank. Her victory over Bernie was not exactly a rout.

    The advantages Caine brings to the ticket are not the ones that she needs. Trump supporters are enthusiatic and that wins elections. Since, we did not get Bernie, her best bet was Liz Warren having an impeccable progressive record and credentials, as her choice to give it to Donald with both barrels. She is everything that HC isn't. This is not the season for a tepid candidacy and ticket.

    A Donald Trump presidency is unacceptable, so I urge Democrats and progressives to do their duty this fall

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I agree. B O R I N G

      A Clinton/Warren ticket would have been exciting for multiple reasons.. Kaine is just another centrist, establishment Democrat.

      B O R I N G

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I have a disturbing feel about this, I can't imagine that she would lose having so many advantages. But she is one to be overconfident and underestimate a situation.

        She was defeated for the nomination by a virtually unknown senator from Illinois. While both and she and Obama were on the same ideological plane, Obama ran a better campaign and Clinton took a lot for granted and that was fatal for her. I thought that she would be more careful this time around.

        She currently has the advantage but that could dissipate quickly, with bad judgement calls. She lacks the charm of her husband and Obama, and the intensity and commitment to the Progressive ideal of a Sanders or Warren. Having to carry more baggage than I would like to see her go into this with, she will again underestimate the mood of the electorate. If she is short sighted this time and force me into a position of terror with having to live with a Trump presidency over the next 8 years, I'll never forgive her.

        In this election cycle with Bernie Sanders, it was clear where the substantial factions of the Democraticparty are. She should be using this information to her advantage to bring the party together. It is more than picking up a state or two or attracting an obscure demographic  Well, sigh....

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          She still gets my vote.

    2. promisem profile image95
      promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The last thing Clinton needs is a controversial choice. Like it or not, Warren would be controversial, divisive (just watch her speeches) and alienate voters who aren't comfortable with two women on the ticket (again, like it or not because sexism still exists in America).

      Hillary already has the endorsement of Sanders. As a Democrat, she will appeal to a majority of Democrats and center left independents.

      She needs someone who would appeal to the center and center right. Kaine will fill that role, while Warren would not.

      Kaine also spent time as DNC chair, which means he has fundraising experience and a strong network of party contacts around the country.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks for dropping by. I disagree with that assessment, Trumps doubles down on reactionary politics, disdaining any desire to move to the center with a pick like Pense.

        You know, you are the second guy that spoke of a dual female ticket as a liability. Maybe, Ms. Clinton is affected by this bias as well, I.e. The pantsuit thing. Funny, I never gave these things a thought knowing that female heads of state are common throughout theWestern world. I am a Black man, I am more concerned about ideological integrity consistent with Democratic Party principles over the gender of who it is that carries the banner. We Americans are still culturally inferior to the attitudes common in Western Europe. I am male why do I not have this anxiety about a female being head of state?

        Sanders endorsed Clinton recognizing that angst within the party ranks will insure a Trump victory. He is a man of honor and integrity. There remains a great ideological divide between his supporters and hers and she needed to do more to breach that than merely to accept a truce with Sanders. 

        This is the Democratic Party, we are not interested in the center-right. Neoliberal Clinton is already of the standard just left of center model. A more inspiring choice would lock up more Democrats concerned about her authenticity relative the issues that move us today and would have helped with independents as well.

        She is thinking that faced with choice of a Trump presidency disaffected libs will be dragged along. But, that is not the correct attitude to have.

        Being a party to party apparatchiks is not an asset in this election season.

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          If the Democratic party is not interested in the center right, then it is not interested in winning or staying in power.

          The party needs the center to win, and many voters who think of themselves as center right can vote for either party, especially if they have to choose between Clinton and Trump.

          "You are the second GUY that spoke of a dual female ticket as a liability" sounds like you might think I'm being sexist in making my remark. I think my point was clear.

          Do you agree there are people in America who wouldn't want to see two women on the same ticket when our country has never even put one into the White House?

          The election for Clinton is not just about winning the White House. It's also about winning back the Senate and moving the needle on a House that may be Republican for the rest of our lives (thanks to gerrymandering).

          If the Dems win everything, they would make a huge mistake if they try to swing governance over to the far left after the chaos inflicted on our country by the far right.

          If they did, independent voters like me will start voting again for a lot more Republicans.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Hello again promisem,

            I think I might have been one of those fellas that spoke of the all-female ticket and whether U.S. voters were ready for it.

            I think you have a solid point about the Dems needing the Center Right vote. I also think that is the vote the Repubs are losing.

            About that all-female ticket, I see just the opposite prospect. After voting our first black president, I think more American voters would accept it than automatically reject it. I think we are in a time when that would be possible.

            My original comment  was that I thought a Clinton/Warren ticket would combine two bases that are large enough to almost guarantee a Democrat victory.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              That is a change, you acknowledge thepossibilty that a ticket with dual females may not in itself, be detracting for the average American voter in this day and age.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Well.... not too much of a change

                I do agree with you. As I recall, I responded awhile back that a Clinton/Warren ticket would probably doom the Republicans.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  It does and it did, that is why I wanted the combo so badly!!!

            2. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Hello again, GA. Thanks for your usual thought-provoking feedback.

              I completely agree with your point about the country being more willing to consider a ticket with two women candidates. The question is, will enough voters oppose such a ticket that it decides the election in favor of Trump?

              I'm betting the DNC and Clinton campaign polled like crazy to see the response to various ticket combinations. Clinton-Warren probably didn't generate enough favorability to justify it. And the other consideration is how well the two get along behind the scenes. Some factors in the choice we'll never know.

              That being said, I don't see a ticket with two women being as risky as having a ticket that may be seen as too liberal by moderates. And Warren is a firebrand who rouses a lot of fierce opposition by the far right. Kaine is not.

          2. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Promisem, maybe I need to backup a bit. I never found a great definition for center-right. You may be in that category. So what separates you from your more conservative brethren, the dead center or center left?

            I was under the impression that center-right is conservative. I don't know how many folks so designated would have voted for Obama over Romney, in say 2012? My point was that the Dems campaign's energy needed to be spent among those that are the more certain Democratic voter. Just as Karl Rove admonished Trump to quit his pipe dream of winning in either California or New York and focus on traditional battleground states where had a chance of winning. I can't imagine conservatives of any stripe being attracted to the Democratic Party platform.

            My comment to you regarding female heads of state was not meant to be offensive. I refer to the point that GA mentioned the same thing to me not long ago. That is what I meant by the 'second Guy'.

            Yes, I acknowlege your point about a dual female ticket for the White House. I just like to know why so many are intimidated at the prospect. I am a guy and I am not intimidated, for much of the reasons I touched on before. Is that a fear among conservatives?

            Getting that GOP nest of obstructionist vipers out of Congress is almost impossible short of a democratic landslide as in 1964/or GOP 1984 landslide. I don't know how much help we can expect from any conservative in this task. Only a motivated and enthusiastic Democratic Party constiuency can be the foundation for such a change. If we can paint Trump as the beastial version of Barry Goldwater for the voting public, the voter will rush into our open arms seeking protection from a madman. We saw that in 1964, could it happen again?

            I understand your point that more success can come from a central political ideology, right or left.

            1. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Well said, Credence. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding about the two guys.

              A Gallup poll found that 38% of Americans see themselves as conservative, 34% as moderates and 24% as liberals. So moderates form the center.

              http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liber … tives.aspx

              The mathematical center of the total voters is 50%, so it seems logical that at least some center right voters are needed for a Democratic candidate to win.

              Likewise, a Republican candidate needs some center left voters to win. It's easier for me to imagine Clinton winning some center right voters than Trump winning enough center left.

              Someone who is center right might easily be a moderate with conservative leanings. I probably fall into that category.

              I do understand your point about Clinton failing to appease Bernie supporters and other liberals. She might overcome that problem by promising him a cabinet appointment, in which case he would be more likely to campaign for her and bring his supporters along.

              We'll see. His level of presence at the convention will be very revealing.

              Regarding your question about two women on the ticket, my answer is that you are open minded politically. Unfortunately, our country still has many people who aren't.

            2. promisem profile image95
              promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              FYI, winning the election depends on winning independent voters. Voter affiliation according to Pew Research:

              - 39% independent
              - 32% Democrat
              - 23% Republican

              If you look at the affiliation trend in the Gallup poll below, you will see that pure Republican affiliation has declined from 32% in 2004 to 28% in 2016.

              Pure Democratic affiliation has increased from 28% in 2004 to 31% in 2016.

              (Yes, Pew and Gallup don't agree on the Republican total.)

              It seems that the numbers are another way of indicating the need to win with a VP candidate who will appeal to independents rather than true Republicans or true Democrats.

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I think that's exactly what her and her campaign staff are thinking. They are calculating that although a significant number on the left will be disappointed, they will be unwilling to inflict massive self-harm by not voting, or voting for Trump. And by staying near the centre (with some nods to the left) they will be able to pick up more independents and disaffected conservatives. In that sense the Clinton campaign is using the horror of a potential Trump presidency to full advantage, by dragging along the left, and sucking up independents and anti-trump conservatives. It may not be fair to those who felt the Bern, but at this stage it's sensible politics, assuming the calculation about the left is correct. Depends on how self-destructive people are feeling. It's reasonable to expect those on the left wouldn't be that self-destructive, but will the Debi Wasserman Schultz issue rile people up again? 18 months ago I would have said it's reasonable to assume Trump will not win the nomination, yet here we are. So it's hard to predict. We've truly entered the rabbit hole. No doubt things will keep getting curiouser and curiouser.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Thanks, Don

            The attitude in this sense is arrogant and it is a mistake that we can ill afford in this election season. I think that there are more of the independents and reliably Democratic voters, when sufficiently motivated, on Clinton's left flank. All one has to do is to see how well Sanders did without the apparatchik machinery of the Democratic establishment and despite all the skullduggery of Debbie Schulz deliberately undermining his campaign. Bernie and his supporters speaks to the Democratic Party as it needs to become verses what itis right now. In the face of all this, the Sanders's campaign was legendary.

            Ms. Clinton is in the unique position as part of the race to the nomination to clearly see where the fissures within the Democratic constituency were. Any smart politician would take advantage of that knowledge to get a unified effort this fall. Instead, she dismisses like some errant school boy 40% of Dem. Primary voters who went for Sanders. And what does she offer in consolation to solarge a crowd? She brings in another corporatist like herself, the sort that has proven the very contradiction of the principles behind the Sanders Dynamo. We are only going to gather a few gnats from the right, in the attempt to appease conservatives, while she leaves the elephant on table (Sanders supporters). One of the earlier posts mentioned that Clinton and Warren did not get along. Warren is a strong willed lady, and that is why I wanted her as VP. She would have been the healing salve to a rather lopsided nomination process. She is a no nonsense politician with impeccable progressive credentials, who can be expected to keep Clinton from getting too chummy with the corporatists. But, Clinton needed a 'yes man', while Warren wasn't the type to just be put on a shelf and told to 'shut up' when not needed. She would never be satisfied as a figurehead, that why Clinton could not work with her.

            Her plan and gamble is risky, and takes a lot for granted. Which from my perspective, seems to be a problem with her. I don't like loose ends, leaving gaping holes that should be closed.

            If she mismanages this thing and I end up with an ogre like Donald Trump, she will become the 'Herbert Hoover' of a new generation.

            I don't see Donald Trump attempting to take seriously any concerns from the left, look at who he brings as his running mate? So, why is she pandering to the wrong crowd?

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              "If you don’t believe this election is important, if you think you can sit it out, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump would nominate and what that would mean to civil liberties, equal rights and the future of our country." (Bernie Sanders)*

              One can only image what harm would be done to women's reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ equality, racial equality, affordable health care, civil rights in general, the struggle against economic inequality etc.

              I sympathize with the frustration, but to be fair to the Committee, I think they have made a genuine effort to ensure the platform is more representative of different parts of the party, even if they had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. I think it's undeniable the platform this year would look different if not for the efforts of Sanders and those on the left, and that's a big achievement. And as the man himself said, the struggle continues. I have no doubt that once Trump is denied the White House, Sanders and his troupe will get back to scaring the bejesus out of moderates (Republicans and Democrats alike) which is as it should be in vibrant democracy. For now, I think Sanders is right, people must look to the business of keeping Trump out of the White House.

              (*)https://berniesanders.com/sanders-prepa … convention

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                "I think it's undeniable the platform this year would look different if not for the efforts of Sanders and those on the left, and that's a big achievement."

                Let's hope that it is enough to unify the party and keep them focused on the enemy, Donald Trump.

          2. promisem profile image95
            promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Excellent points, Don. I understand why Sanders supporters are upset, but it's hard to imagine that they would want to hurt Clinton enough to hand the presidency to Trump.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Promisem, but out of frustration they might sit this one out. Sanders has had a lot of influence on the young and the independent voters whose alliances can be considered fickle, at best. In this contest we can't afford to leave any 'money on the table'.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image83
                Alternative Primeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                FYI ~ Approximately 76% of Senator Sander's Supporters have ALREADY Committed to VOTE for Hillary ~ The Infinite Number of REASONs WHY they would NEVER even Conceive of a VOTE for Trump are OBVIOUS ~

                The Majority of the Remaining Balance should come around to Hillary once they become RE-Acquainted with "Delusional" Donald's Anti -American AGENDA like Demanding HARDER Work for LESS Pay, Slashing WAGEs, Crashing OUR Economy by Defaulting on OUR Debt Obligations, Weakening NATO, De-Funding Planned Parenthood etc etc ~

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  AP, I hope for both of our sakes, that you are right....

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image83
                    Alternative Primeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    As ALWAYs, I'm just POSTING Mathematical FACT ~

              2. promisem profile image95
                promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Credence, I really do understand the frustration. If I were one of them, I would be even more frustrated if I sat out the election and saw Trump get elected.

                Do you think they see Clinton and Trump as equally bad choices? I would think a strong liberal would prefer a neo liberal over a waffling conservative.

      2. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I like Elizabeth Warren, and I've heard several people say that they would liked to have seen a Clinton/Warren ticket. I think that would have been great, but I don't think it would have been electable. For some reason, (blame the Southern Baptists, I guess) this country is backward when it comes to putting women in high office and otherwise breaking the glass ceiling. We are behind such countries as Israel and India, not to mention certain European countries, and we are having to move slowly to get this country used to the idea. There are too many misogynists out there who would not have voted for two women for the highest offices in the land.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The difference between HRC and Trump is that Trump runs his mouth about doing anything he wants without fear of losing votes. HRC does whatever she wants while on a very tight mouthed attitude much like Trump. I can't vote for either. I will write in a candidate that I feel is best for the country. I will let the rest make their own mistake by voting for one of the other two.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Understood, but for me not voting is an advantage to Trump, who I consider to be Lucifer in the flesh. I don't want this man anywhere near Pennsyvania Ave. We will have to resign ourselves to the concept 'to each, his own'.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        My husband feels the same as you. He will not vote for either candidate, and while I disagree with this tactic, I would never judge. Everyone should vote their conscience.

    4. johnmariow profile image81
      johnmariowposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I am a registered Democrat. I don't think Clinton was comfortable with Senator Warren. I'm not discouraged by Hillary's choice because my vote is more a vote against Trump then it is a vote for Hillary. I think we have a lousy choice this year.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks, John

        I think Clinton would be more comfortable with a VP that stayed clearly in the background with no one questioning her brand of neoliberalism politics. That attitude may well cost the Dems the election.

    5. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Why would any real supporter of Sanders be interested in Hillary?

      Hillary is nothing, if not a poster child of Washington politics. 
      Hillary is a LIFE LONG politician. What do you think about politicians that have made themselves worth over 100 million dollars, like Hillary has?

      Who does Hillary owe allegiance to for all that money, certainly not Americans? Have the Clinton's really been bankrolled by the Chinese for three decades now? How strong are those economic ties to Saudi Arabia? How much do the Clinton's owe to these foreign 'investors'?

      And what about Trump?

      You know, it is sad that we have people who scream out he is the next Hitler, and actually believe it.  Hitler was an open book, he wrote Mein Kampf long before he came into power... in fact he wrote it while in prison.  The difference between Hitler's upbringing and molding into the evil person he was, and Trump's background... is as different as can be. 

      Hitler had nothing but his hate, and a history of abuse and poverty.  Trump has had nothing but success, social, economical, family, etc. 

      That doesn't make him qualified for the position of President, but between the two, Clinton and Trump... Clinton has been far more extreme in her pursuit of power and control, like Hitler, than Trump.

      Trump has a rather naivete understanding of how politics, in Washington, and on the global stage, work. Then again, we survived this for the last eight years. Obama was a junior Senator with little real world experience on the national or global stage... he was as wet behind the ears and as ideologically driven as any President in our lifetimes, and yet America and the world is still here.

      Trump is inexperienced but pro-American, pro-America first... and anti-Washington BS politics as we know them. He is the outsider, first and foremost, the anti-Washington candidate.

      That's all... despite his rhetoric he is not evil, he is not racist (I'd be willing to bet far less so than Clinton who has plenty of racist remarks in her past, just check out youtube) ... we can choose someone corrupted by politics and the 'reality' of Washington who is indebted to all the corrupting influences we want Washington free of... or we can choose the total outsider who if anything, exemplifies the 'Ugly American'.

      Do we need to focus on America-first? 
      Or can we afford to continue down the road of appeasement, crippling trade agreements (to American workers), and open borders without any real vetting or control?

      1. promisem profile image95
        promisemposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I'm no fan of Clinton, and I understand why so many people favor Trump because of deep frustration with Washington.

        I hope you and I agree that we need a strong and experienced outsider who can both lead and not be a part of the status quo.

        I don't want to open a new can of worms, but a lot of prominent people (like the 150 tech executives who recently penned that public letter) believe that Trump doesn't have the temperament to be that person.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Think about their motives... for instance Elon Musk is someone who trashes Trump, not an American, but his companies benefit from billions in gov't support and tax breaks.  So he has reason to fear a change in the 'status quo' of how taxpayer dollars are dolled out.
          How many others who penned that letter have billions at stake?  How many could lose fortunes if the 'fleecing of the middle class' trade agreements and exodus of companies to greener (cheaper labor) pastures is reversed?
          Sure they will label him, accuse him, he threatens to change the balance of power back in favor of America and American workers... whether or not he stays true to campaign promises, his exposure of Washington corruption and careless (as in could care less about hard working Americans) is another matter.

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks, Ken for dropping by....

        Why would Sanders supporters be interested in Hillary?
        We have one thing in a common, a desire to see progressive ideology as the rule of the day rather than otherwise. That is why Trump's belief that he can peel a sizable amount these voters to his cause (rightwing) is pure fantasy.

        The Clinton's have been in the realm of politics for some time, agreed. But what about the Bush family, it goes back as far as GW Bush's granddad? I've heard a great deal about their involvement with heads of states in the oil rich Middle East. The Kennedy clan amassed a great deal of economic and political power going back to the patriarch, Joseph P.   So, there is nothingnew about any of this.

        What did Bush owe his allegiance to in regards to his acquisition of wealth?

        So, now, what about Trump?

        He has an abrasive race baiting style, blaming the woes of any one citizen on his or her neighbor. I am not comparing Trump to Hitler. But, there is a certain style; our economic problems are due to Minorities wanting 'free stuff', hispanics, mostly citizens, overrunning the culture, the threat of illegals as barbarians at the gate and the unconstitutional and unethical attacks on Moslems in a broad brushed, bigoted sort of fashion. Before carrying out mayhem, Hitler had to demonize his hapless victims before the German public, asking the typical German to blame his Jewish neighbor for his economic plight. Sounds like the Trump approach and believe me, I have seen that movie, too. It is all history, hopefully not to be repeated. It has been a long time since I have seen White Nationalist, DAVID Duke openly endorse any candidate. Do I need to be concerned as to what it is that is attracting all of the flies from the unpleasant periphery of American politics? Unfortunately, often times there is more than a kernel of truth behind the perceptions that many of us pick up about Trump.

        Trump, coming off as a plutocrat to rescue of working class Americans has to be a red herring. He plays to the anxieties of white working class who in desparation do not seem to know better. He promises to stop the Earth from spinning on its axis and they believe it. He, a beneficiary of outsourcing, claims he is going to end it on behalf of the American worker? His record as a businessman within the private sector is hardly exemplary. He comes off as a 'chiseler', a cheap con man sort of predator looking for vulnerable prey. With the White working classes, he has found it. Why aren't all those considered in the working class economically not attracted to his mating call?

        Trump is only pro-Trump, his outsized ego and lack of intellectual curiosity or interest in learning is not the kind of man I want running things in a dangerous world.

        There are plenty of us that are concerned with the out of control, deaf eared Washington bureaucracy, but Trump is not the answer. He would just climb under the covers with the very people that are responsible for washington's tone deafness, the plutocrat.

        If he is not racist, then he should show respect and sensibility to what callous remarks can do to those that he needs to persuade, or maybe he is not concerned about those on the offended end as he believes he can win without them? Doubling down on just attracting disaffected white workers is going to prove an inadequate and ineffective strategy.

        Trump is just as corrupt within the realm of his private sector universe, I can't imagine  a sudden rebirth of character and principle just because he assumes elective office.

        Thanks for your attention........

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Trump would not be my choice... no 70 year old pop-idol would be, whether or not he was a self made billionaire or not.

          But much of what you say he says are words you, or whatever propaganda hit piece you read about him, has cooked up.

          He says we need to close the borders, the flow of millions of immigrants into our country is killing wages and job opportunities for Americans.  And he is totally correct about this... supply and demand of WORKERS does impact their value, and whether its Toll Brothers or Tyson Chicken, you can bet your behind they are hiring illegals at 8 dollars an hour and no insurance benefits over paying an American 20 dollars an hour and contributing to his insurance coverage everywhere they can get away with it.

          Its down to common sense... do we keep on going down the road we are on... do we keep allowing Washington to write up laws that oppress us with more taxes and costs to the benefit of National and Global corporations (which is all Obamacare really is)?

          Do we keep racking up two trillion dollars a year in debt (some day that bill will come due in awful fashion either in a massive amount of new taxes just to pay the interest on that debt, or in the form of economic collapse)?

          And where is all that money going to?  Certianly much of it goes to all those millions out of work and living off the system, as well as those illegals that get better coverage than our veterans through the VA.  So all those jobs we seem to not care about going off to Mexico or China will be all the fewer working Americans contributing to pay for those who can't/don't.

          He talks plenty about the trade imbalances, and why would so many be against him for that?

          Well who is it that you think has their strings attached to all those politicians in Washington?  It isn't we the voters, that's for sure.

          Its those corporations, and nations like China and Mexico, that are draining America of jobs and wealth and have been for decades now... NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc. there is no benefit to America and Americans... there is only stagnating wages and lost jobs... as has been the case for many many years.

          The benefits come to nations that those agreements favor... and in turn those nations pay for the political campaigns, as well as fatten the accounts of those polticians who keep selling out America.

          And Clinton (the Clintons) are as compromised and corrupt as ANY politician in the mix.

          As for you bringing up the Bush family, I don't see the relevance... the Bush family was soundly rejected by the voters, as they should have been, they are as complicit and corrupt as the Clintons.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            I don't think that I can add a great deal to Don's comments to you as of late. They reflect my point of view, as well. Trump abrasive and sensationalist talk in a bigoted vein, is always dangerous talk, because Hitler started with such 'talk'. There were so many Jews that chose to ignore Hitler's rants, thinking that they would pass over. Such was not the case.

            It is not propaganda, but is a re-affirms a course evident to those having studied History.

            Yes, I know the corporatists are taking advantage, when have they not? Trump has no convincing approach as to how is going to short circuit a major tenant of capitalism. Nabisco is not going to be enticed to return jobs here to the American labor market, paying $25.00/hour with benefits when they can acquire the same for $3.00/hour in the Mexican economy. Trumps tell you that he will bring back manufacturing jobs that have been long rendered obsolete in the AMERICAN labor market through technology and outsourcing. Most of his products are made overseas, so who is he to talk?

            Are there problems? Yes. But Trump and the populist right only have brash talk with no real solutions that can stand the light of day.

            My point in bringing up the Bush family is to make the point that we have had many chief executives who have along with their families inordinate economic and political influence in recent AMERICAN history and that in itself has not been a disqualifier for the office of President. So why single Clinton out?

            1. Ken Burgess profile image79
              Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Why single them out?  Well do you like how the last 25 years have gone as far as the transformation from the #1 Industrial Nation, and the #1 in Wealth, and #1 in Wages and workplace environment to what we are falling to now?
              Do you like how politics in Washington are working... with laws passed that allow America to be fleeced for the Mortgage Crisis that the politicians in collusion with Wall St. created in the first place?
              More of the same... more of the Obamacare 'progression' that promises to make Insurance more affordable but then doubles its cost while most Insurance covers nothing at all until you, the Patient, have already paid half your year's salary out of pocket to cover deductables....
              That's all Clinton means to America... more of the same decline in the Middle Class, which will be taxed more, and get less out of it.

      3. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Trump represents the abandonment of reason. He is the personification of post-factual politics where irrationality, bigotry and ignorance hold sway over facts and reason. Therein lies the similarity with dictators like Hitler, not his personal background.

        Hitler coined the term "big lie" as a propaganda strategy in Mein Kampf in 1925: "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one . . . they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"(1). This became the favored strategy of the Nazis. Keep repeating lies (the more ludicrous the better) until someone starts to believe them, or at least doubt the truth.

        That's what Hitler did when he demonized the Jews, blaming them for Germany's problems, which was followed by state-enforced racism in the form of legislation that gradually removed the civil, political, and economic rights of Jews, culminating in the "final solution".

        When Trump demonizes Hispanics and Muslims, and blames them for the country's problems. When he promises legislation that will weaken or remove the civil, political and economic rights of Muslims and Mexicans, he is using the same strategy Hitler used against Jews before WWII.

        And no, he doesn't just have a "naivete [sic] understanding of how politics, in Washington, and on the global stage, work". He deliberately fosters culturally induced ignorance. By suggesting this is naivete, and not calculated deception, you are peddling the same ignorance.

        Hitler's term, the big lie, sums up Trump and his strategy in their entirety. It's no coincidence that Trump is endorsed by the KKK and other white supremacists. If you want to discuss the comparisons between Trump and dictators further, start a new thread. I'd be happy to participate.

        Suggesting Trump has no special interests is ridiculous. Trump's special interest is Trump and the Trump Organization. Electing him to stop greedy corporatists, is the equivalent of hens electing a fox to stop greedy foxes. He doesn't merely have a relationship with corporate America, he is corporate America.

        And the idiotic assertion that Trump is not racist is a perfect example of post-factual politics and culturally induced ignorance (even Paul Ryan noted that Trump's comments are a "textbook definition"(2) of racism. Paul Ryan!) In making such claims you are accepting irrationality and bigotry over facts and reason, engaging in culturally induced ignorance, and participating in the big lie.

        As for "America First". The last "America First" movement was formed 65 years ago to stop the US entering WWII. The movement claimed it would be bad for the US and bad for "the white races". The leader of the movement, Charles Lindbergh (yes that Charles Lindbergh) said European countries should ". . . band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood". In a speech in Des Moines Lindbergh attacked groups that he referred to as "war agitators" and referred to "the Jewish race" as being one of those groups(3). Even though anti-semitism was much more prevalent at that time, the recent GOP presidential candidate of the time said it was "the most un-American talk made in my time by any person of national reputation."(4)

        "America first, will be the overriding theme of my Administration"(5)
        (Donald Trump, 2016)

        If you think that is accidental and not an attempt to appeal to the worst elements in society, then I think you are more naive than you claim Trump to be.

        (1)http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt
        (2)http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/p … dge-223991
        (3)http://www.charleslindbergh.com/america … speech.asp
        (4)https://newspapers.ushmm.org/events/cha … can-speech
        (5)http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-trump-fir … 1461800085

        1. Ken Burgess profile image79
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Excellent reply, and it applies aptly to much of what we have seen go on during the Obama administration... never say 'radical Islamic terrorism' say workplace violence or blame it on a youtube video or guns.
          I know you didn't intend it for that purpose, but we have seen 7 years of it, Cops being murdered... well, they are racist, its a racist nation... terrorist goes off and kills 50 or 80 or 130 people... well, you know whites need to be more tolerant.
          Its amazing how blind people are to 'Dreams from my father' just like they were to Mein Kampf  same thing different era, different delivery.

      4. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        "The difference between Hitler's upbringing and molding into the evil person he was, and Trump's background... is as different as can be."

        KB, that statement is correct, but I don't think that is why people are comparing them. It is the tactics and mannerisms that are worrying observers because they find them similar.

    6. Jackie Lynnley profile image76
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      He probably will be taking over if she does make it in.
      https://youtu.be/2Ojeiby_l7E

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Kaine seemed like a lot of bromide, but I will live with him.

  2. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

    Clinton and Warren are establishment democrats too. 

    Trump is looking even more BEAUTIFUL! Not BORING.
    We need a law and order president after all the chaos and division.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Sorry, not a chance!!

  3. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago

    Okay, I take it back. Just watched his introduction and speech as VP candidate. Not boring at all.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Am I missing something? Maybe, I better tune in...

      An article of interest...

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-conc … 22105.html

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I share your concerns that adding Tim Kaine to the ticket does nothing to inspire those who are not that crazy about Hillary.  I worry about young people not turning out to vote. 

        The only thing I can say at this point is that watching her introduction and his speech did reassure me somewhat.  I don't know if they will be able to create excitement and get people to want to vote, but they did seem remarkably relaxed and comfortable together.  Also, Tim Kaine seemed genuinely happy to be with Hillary on the ticket, and his speaking ability was much more engaging than I remember. 

        So, right now, while I'm not excited about Hillary's VP pick, I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be fine in the end. 

        I did get excited when I heard him speaking fluent Spanish!  That was truly awesome.

        1. IslandBites profile image86
          IslandBitesposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          How he learned Spanish is really nice.

          He attended Harvard Law School, taking a break during law school to work with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Honduras. Kaine worked in Honduras for nine months from 1980 to 1981, helping Jesuit missionaries who ran a Catholic school in El Progreso. While running a vocational center that taught carpentry and welding, he also helped increase the school's enrollment by recruiting local villagers. Kaine is fluent in Spanish as a result of his year in Honduras.

          Btw, he was the first  senator to delivered a full speech on the floor of the Senate in a language other than English.

          "I think it is appropriate that I spend a few minutes explaining the bill in Spanish, a language that has been spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565..."

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFe2Nu-CW-4

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            That's really cool, giving a speech to a roomful of people that can't understand a word being said.  Although, come to think about it, it does say quite a bit about what we can expect from him when it comes to the problem of millions of illegal aliens in our country, mostly speaking spanish.

            1. IslandBites profile image86
              IslandBitesposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              "I will provide the translation of my remarks in Spanish and in English for congressional record."

              "I think it is appropriate that I spend a few minutes explaining the bill in Spanish, a language that has been spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate."

              Well yes, really cool. smile


              The United States is now the world’s second largest Spanish-speaking country. There are 41 million native Spanish speakers in the US plus a further 11.6 million who are bilingual. The US Census Office estimates that the US will have 138 million Spanish speakers by 2050, making it the biggest Spanish-speaking nation on Earth, with Spanish the mother tongue of almost a third of its citizens.

              (Fortunately, it does).

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                "Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate."

                Meaning that they are bi-lingual.  There are precious few Americans that can speak only Spanish.  So I repeat - why speak a language that most people in the chamber could not understand? 

                "There are 41 million native Spanish speakers in the US plus a further 11.6 million who are bilingual."

                And are these native spanish speakers, that are not bilingual, American citizens?  Why would a visitor to the country need to hear our government business in their native language (I certainly wouldn't visit French parliament and expect or hope to hear English spoken)?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  You're right. It is not "needed"n nor should iir be "expected" for a senator to speak Spanish. It's just another way to  communicate. Why does it bother you so much?

                  Politicians cater to their constituency all the time in a multitude of ways.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    "Politicians cater to their constituency all the time in a multitude of ways."

                    Yes they do.  It's all about the personal power they can collect from that constituency, even when it's composed of large numbers of foreign citizens in the country illegally. 

                    Although I have to question the "communicate" part; as few could understand a word being said there wasn't much "communication", now was there?  Just grandstanding aimed at illegal aliens.

                    It is a major part of what's wrong with our "leadership".  Capitulating to powerful voting groups that wish to change the country for their personal benefit.  Whether it be big corporations or illegal aliens doesn't make much difference.

                2. MizBejabbers profile image91
                  MizBejabbersposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  FYI, the dominant language in Puerto Rico is Spanish, and many of the citizens do not speak English at all. In fact, they publish two codes of law, one in English and the other in Spanish. I work for a state law-making agency and often get to meet people from other states and territories who do the same work. I have met several employees of the Puerto Rican government who edit and prepare the Spanish language code, and a couple of them did not speak English at all. They are U.S. citizens.

                  8 U.S.C.,§ 1402
                  All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.
                  (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 302, 66 Stat. 236.)

            2. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Based on the happy cheering from the crowd, it was well received.

              I see this as indicative of the difference between progressives and conservatives. We embrace bilingualism as a sign of knowledge and inclusion. I knew a good portion of conservatives would ridicule it. So predictable.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                I'm sure it was.

                Yes, predictable - throw a grandstand act to illegals in the hope that we can get their votes one day.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, because Little Donnie NEVER engages in grandstanding for the crowd. roll

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          We are on the same team, and  I surely hope that it will be a winning combo to the finish.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Maybe this will make you smile. Picture Little Donnie gleefully composing his tweet bashing Tim Kaine for speaking Spanish, finger poised ready  to click "send, and Ivanka pleading with him not to do it. Who will win? LOL

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Little Donnie? You mean the fellow some folks, (you?), ridiculed for remarks such as; "Little Rubio," "Lying Ted," or "Crooked Hillary?"

              Some even said his name-calling destroyed any credibility he might have had. Hmm....

              GA

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, if you will notice, he is the only one I ever call names. I find it amusing when Trump supporters are offended by it, given Little Donnie's primary tactic has been name calling.

                If you ate a Trump supporter then I laugh heartily at you. If not, then you're entitled to your opinion about my calling little Donnie names. Heck,even Trump supporters are entitled to slam me for it, but they look pretty hypocritical doing it.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                lol

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  big_smile

              3. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Believe me, GA, when I say that "little donnie' is mild compared to the adjectives I have to describe this man, Trump. I restrain myself because I am among mixed company.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but those adjectives were descriptors, like; idiot, bigot, racist, etc. "Little Donnie" is not an adjective or a descriptor, (beyond comparing two Donnies of course), it is name-calling. So you are not calling Trump little Donnie to describe him, you do it to belittle him.

                  I don't have a very high opinion of Trump either, but it is only based on media coverage and what little I have read about him. So its foundation isn't strong enough to mitigate the chance that I could be wrong. I don't think I am, but stranger things have happened. I remember once back in 78' when I thought I was wrong... but I was mistaken.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    1978? That's a pretty good record.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Well, I was the one who called him "Little Donnie" and I do believe it is a descriptor of his inner self, a childish insecure toddler. I have no qualms about calling a man who belittles women and the handicapped "little."

                    If it offends your delicate sensibilities, so be it. ;-)

                    Edited to add: Yes, I am belittling Donald Trump, a person who is the champion of publicly belittling pretty much anyone who dares to question anything about him. A man who wants to be President of the United States.  Poor Little Donnie better be able to take it if he wants to dish it out.

    2. Alternative Prime profile image83
      Alternative Primeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Senator Tim Kaine is an Amazing Human Being in EVERY WAY & as V.P., he's CLEARLY More than Qualified to be second in line for the PRESIDENCY ~ Successful & COMPETENT Mayor, Governor & Senator ~

      Republicans Right NOW, are Jumping Off of 10 Story Buildings & Clonkin' their COLLECTIVE Heads Up Against Concrete Walls because they are "STUCK" with a Future Prison-INMATE in Donald, and a Homophobic VP in Pence ~ sad

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        LOL, I also think that some right-wing heads are exploding all across America after hearing Tim Kaine speak Spanish during his acceptance speech.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Living in a state adjacent to VA I am familiar with Tim Kaine. Speaking Spanish may turn a few of you on, but he is still Tim Kaine. Nothing to get excited about.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image83
            Alternative Primeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Senator Kaine was Pretty EXCITING Today with Hillary ~ And Smart, Intelligent, Articulate, Precise, Enchanting, Affable etc etc.....Much MORE Energy than "Delusional Donald" who always Exhibits a RED-ish Purple-ish Stressed OUT Face, STIFF Awkward Movements & "BREATHING & Neck Strain" Problems while STRUGGLING through every HATE Speech he gives ~ All signs that a STROKE could be imminent ~

            He really needs to get that "BREATHING Deficiency" Checked OUT Immediately, by a DIFFERENT Doctor, as DANGEROUS as he is to the WORLD, we'd hate to see the "Donald" "BLOW a Gasket" right there on National T.V. before he has a chance to  "Default on OUR Debt" or get SIZED Up for his ORANGEY Jump Suit Jammies ~ smile ~ Or are they still Striped these days? smile

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Panther, maybe I was in error about Hillary C. and how much she has picked up on the Bernie Sander's agenda. Excerpt from a Salon article:

      "Hillary Clinton has announced that, should she win the presidency, she will move to make public universities tuition-free for students from households with an annual income under $85,000. In five years, universities will elevate the ceiling to $125,000. Her higher-education policy also includes a three-year moratorium on payments for any student debtor who starts a new business, and an acceleration of forgiveness for those entering a career in social services. She is also looking into lowering interest rates on existing and future student loans.

      Clinton also proposes to guarantee 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a newborn child or seriously ill family member. Millions of young parents, and children of terminally ill senior citizens, will benefit from the adoption of the long overdue and humane standard of Western society. These plans borrow significantly from Bernie Sanders, demonstrating the beneficial influence that the Sanders candidacy had on the Clinton campaign, but they also indicate an entirely separate sightline separating the two major parties.

      While one has a forward-looking, progressive and aspirational, albeit imperfect, vision for future possibility, the other is hopelessly living in the past – chained to its favorite artifacts of a lost age: factories along the side of the road where white men work double shifts without complaint to come home to their wives in aprons cooking dinner for their heterosexual, Christian children."

      Hope springs eternal....

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, there is little evidence that anything positive would come from a Trump presidency. Hillary is not perfect but at least she is living in the modern world and promoting investments in our future.

        Did you catch Maher's take on Trump, "the 50s Guy," last night? Funny and spot on.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        "...the other is hopelessly living in the past – chained to its favorite artifacts of a lost age: factories along the side of the road where white men work double shifts without complaint to come home to their wives in aprons cooking dinner for their heterosexual, Christian children."

        From Salon.com? Really? Imagine that.

        That thought probably started out something like this;

        " ... the other desperately trying to maintain the core values and morals of their world, as it changes with the interactions of all the other folk's worlds...."

        ... before it hit the Salon spin cycle.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Yeah, 'it' did. One deals with reality, the 'other', fantasy. I don't need Salon to tell me what I can clearly see looking at the GOP platform of its desire to return back into the past rather than prepare and embrace the future. The "good old days" upon close examination, was not quite as good as we all would like to remember.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            The future is not going to be the world uniting as one and singing its-a-small-world, not during any of our lives anyways... many Americans may want that, but in their misguided perceptions they fail to realize there are other nations out there, concerned with their best interests only (IE - China, Russia) and beyond that international groups like ISIS who have their own agendas.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I won't discredit your point here, but the illusion that a 'past world' somewhere holds the solution to present problems, today and tomorrow, regardless of where it may lead, is ludicrous.

  4. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    I find it interesting that democrats are already counting the victory for Hillary !    I believe that in the real world , you know  the one without liberal fantasy-hood ,    that about one more E-Mail scandal  should just about close down the Hillary  private  E -mail system  altogether .   Interesting too   that  Tim -Tim the  gift  accepter can speak "fluent Spanish " as was announced immediately upon his selection .

    Elizabeth Warren is a dough -head  , pure and simple .   I'm sure Hillary has only so much room in her cabinet for too many  dough-heads like Debbie W.Shultz .
    Any body here remember when Democrats were all suffering head explosions when  in 2008  all the buzz  was how  the Republicans were all ...."Too old , too White and too Rich " or some such nonsense ?

    And now Hillary's worth more than  most people in America ,   Picked a pasty white old dude for VP. ?Oh well maybe  Debbie can figure it out!

    What a bunch of hypocrites ?   I 'm lovin how this is playing out !

  5. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13119156.png

 
working