Frank Bruni: Greed and the Presidency- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/18/15 at 10:58pm

You've suggested all sorts of untruths about me and never once admitted how terribly horribly remarkably wrong you were not once.  And I am sorry, but every Republican who wishes the tea party weren't so overt in their racism about the president claims to be "a registered independent."   You're just another in that long, tedious line. 

Bill O'Reilly's "a registered independent" just like you. You're all EXACTLY THE SAME.

 

 

Updated On: 5/19/15 at 10:58 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:07am

"Minivan Moderate" would be a terrible drag name.

 

Not if you spell it Minnie van Moderate.  

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:19am

Minivan Moderate works great for Hillary Clinton. Although Limousine Moderate would be more accurate.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:24am

PRS FTW

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:28am

Erik. Hillary wishes she was a Minivan Moderate. She's more like a slimy, two-faced, corrupt, greedy sleaze ball. 

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:38am

Wait, I'm confused.

I agree with the statement "The corruption of government is the problem. It's that simple. Time to take the $$$ out of politics."

But the only way to stem that tide is to overturn Citizens United - which will require a shift on the supreme court.  Which will require a candidate that can win who has advocated appointing justices who will repeal it... which leads be back to my support for HRC.

Nothing is going to happen in one fell swoop. Effective change is usually incremental - and in order to change the money in politics, the first step is electing a President that you know will nominate justices that will overturn Citizens United.  Maybe that change will be implemented in time for the 2020 election, or 2024 election, but unless you get someone in the White House committed to overturn it, nothing will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:46am

I'm curious what makes you think that Hillary Clinton would appoint someone to the Supreme Court that would overturn Citizens United?

I mean I know she SAYS she would but her actions say something different.

Hillary Clinton Isn't Ready to Disclose Who's Funding Her Campaign

However, there is a Democrat running who isn't using Super Pacs!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:52am

And he cannot win. 

Go ahead and support Nader ... er Sanders.  I am sure the Bush family will appreciate the deja vu.

And go ahead and keep falling for chum the GOP tosses out there.

Updated On: 5/19/15 at 09:52 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:55am

LOL

With that kind of lame reasoning I guess you didn't have a good answer to the question.

Seems like no Hillary supporters do.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 9:55am

YWIW - just as many hopeful Liberals have become immensely disappointed with Obama, as Erik has, history will repeat itself with Hillary in office. She is pandering for votes. We have no assurance based solely on her record that she would attempt to overturn Citizens United, which I agree was a horrendous decision. She decries and bashes Super PACs but then turns around and plans to raise hundreds of millions through them. Hypocritical much? 

 

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 10:12am

"YWIW - just as many hopeful Liberals have become immensely disappointed with Obama, as Erik has, history will repeat itself with Hillary in office. She is pandering for votes. We have no assurance based solely on her record that she would attempt to overturn Citizens United, which I agree was a horrendous decision. She decries and bashes Super PACs but then turns around and plans to raise hundreds of millions through them. Hypocritical much? 
 "

Yet if she does not use SuperPacs, the likelihood of winning is slim and none.   If you want her to a campaign that does not use all of the resources legally available to her, then welcome the GOP into office.  And, as a Jew, I will tell you that a Socialist Jew from Vermont cannot win the general election.  I agree with most of his politics, but will support the candidate that I think can win and do some good vs. one I know cannot win but in a perfect world without bias or Citizens United would have Unicorns walking on the white house lawn.

Again, I like Sanders, and agree with many of his policies, but do not think he is electable as President.  And some of these critiques of Clinton are courtesy of the GOP.

The-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html

 

For the record, I was a supporter of Clinton over Obama, but honestly, think Obama has done about as good as he could given the circumstances, and has helped this country somewhat recover from 8 disastrous years under Bush.   I knew he was a moderate.  He has governed as one.   The one thing I cannot fault him for at all are his Supreme Court appointments. That legacy will outlast his time in office.  

Based upon your position, you would not have voted for FDR or JFK, because they too came from money.  Just because you use the system to get into office, does not mean that you do not recognize that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 10:51am

If public disclosures are making it seem that Hillary's money is "dark," the money behind the various Republican candidates is far, far darker.

HUFF POST: Republicans Very Troubled By Clinton Donors See No Conflict With Their Own Dark Money

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 12:39pm

PJ. Republicans are as corrupt, if not more, than Hillary when it comes to $$. They're greedy and slimy. But I don't think that is the issue we are discussing here. Your equivalency is a moot point since all of them have, and continue to, foolishly voice their support for Super PACs and the Citizens United rulings (with the exception of Rand Paul).

Hillary likes to portray herself as "dead broke" and empathetic to the poor, while railing against campaign finance and bashing Super PACs. Yet she's making millions of dollars a year in speaking fees and raising hundreds of millions of dollars through the very construct she decries. That's hypocritical, disingenuous, and truly heinous. It is alarming that you cannot free yourself from denial and at least admit this. If you still want to support her in spite of this, then fine. Great. Do that. But at least be open and honest about her precarious financial situation. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 1:03pm

The word "heinous" always makes me giggle.

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 2:24pm

"Yet if she does not use SuperPacs, the likelihood of winning is slim and none."

Sorry, but no. That simply isn't true.

If Sanders, who doesn't even half half the name recognition Hillary does, can raise the amount of money he has in such a short time, Hillary would have no problem.

I wonder how many of the Goldman Sachs execs Hillary is pocketing money from will end up with a nice position in her administration. Obama sure hired a lot of them. And Hillary is set to rake in twice the cash.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 2:31pm

We will have to agree to disagree on that.  I appreciate your enthusiasm for Sanders.  I just personally do not think he is electable.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 2:33pm

Well...our corporate owned mainstream media certainly doesn't want you to think he's electable. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 2:48pm

YWIW is part of the mainstream movement that will continue propagating the horrendous two-party political system responsible for destroying our country by simply voting the "lesser of two evils." One should never settle for that. Especially since the government has its grubby, bloated hands in every f*cking aspect of my life. 

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 2:56pm

"Well...our corporate owned mainstream media certainly doesn't want you to think he's electable. "

 

 

Well, seeing how trying to respect your opinions results in you calling me a puppet of corporate media certainly put things in perspective.

I don't think I need corporate media to tell me who I think is electable.  He will be savaged by the right and the middle, and I do not think that America will elect a Jewish quasi-Socialist to be the President of the United States.  As an American Jew, I just don't think that will happen.  Between latent and patent antisemitism and the fact that we are not a mature enough country to look at the substance as opposed to the form of the messenger, he would win a couple of states and lose most of the battleground states.   So, take your corporate media and shove it, that is my personal opinion.

And Accessorry, nice straw man.  I think change only works if incremental. I think it can be done from within the system, and that HRC wants to make it.  I am not a fan of the two-party system, but in the immediate future, which I am not willing to risk by voting for whatever third party candidate that allows the SCOTUS to be reshaped for the next 20-30 years, I will support the candidate that I believe can win.  Protest votes got us Bush 2.

Updated On: 5/19/15 at 02:56 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 7:51pm

One of the first things that happened after W was appointed president was that all mention of condoms as a tool of HIV prevention were scrubbed from the CDC website. This had a deleterious effect on prevention efforts even among not government funded programs.

Everybody who keeps saying all the politicians are "exactly the same" and all their appointees and the descisions those folks make are exactly the same, please tell me how that can possibly be... since I have lived through several of the back and forth of the entrenched two-party system and lived through the vast differences between them. I am not saying Citizens United is not corrupt.  I am not saying the two party system doesn't suck.  I DO know end stage American capitalism sucks in the worst way.  I just don't understand why this ONLY seems to come up during presidential elections?  

For the sake of this discussion, let's just leave the 'band out of it, since he's just a right wing Trojan horse agitator doing his bit to perpetuate false equivalencies over and over and over.  I mean, he "gives money" and "volunteers" to change things.  He says.  How?  Where?  What's happening on that front?  Oh god, just describing the traps he sets up I fell into it myself.

Leave the band out of it, he's a POSEUR.

 

Updated On: 5/19/15 at 07:51 PM

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 5/19/15 at 10:11pm

"Especially since the government has its grubby, bloated hands in every f*cking aspect of my life."

I know what you mean.  Just the other day, I was at a strip mall. I always eat at the Chinese place there but was going to try a new sandwich shop that just opened.  Just as I was walking towards the sandwich shop, a black car with government plates pulled up, 3 guys in dark suits, sunglasses and ear phones got out, looked at me, shook their heads no and motioned me back towards the Chinese place to eat.  Damn government. 

I don't know you and don't know if this applies to you but my experience is that most people with such an utterly cynical view of government and the belief that government is totally corrupt and completely controls their lives are just miserably depressed, unhappy, angry people who hate how their lives have turned out and need someone or something to blame it on cause taking responsibility and ownership for their own lot in life is just "not their thing". I'm not a babe in the woods.  There are areas in which government has failed and areas in which government might be getting too involved but I can't ever imagine how any reasonable person could honestly believe everyone in government is corrupt and controls every aspect of their lives.

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 4:35am

YouWant.... Bernie Sanders is not running a third party candidacy, voting for him in the primary is not equatable to the Nader BS.  He is where many of us are right now and to be left with Hillary unfettered to the party nomination would be a disaster.  I would feel disenfranchised if I was not allowed to vote for someone other than HRC in the primary.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 6:21am

YWIW...I never said you were a puppet of corporate media. My post was meant to be critical of the media, not of you.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 9:06am

There are areas in which government has failed and areas in which government might be getting too involved but I can't ever imagine how any reasonable person could honestly believe everyone in government is corrupt and controls every aspect of their lives.

You sure about that...?

 

Updated On: 5/20/15 at 09:06 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/20/15 at 9:57am

Erik, OK.

And South Fl., I equate Sanders to Paul Tsongas, who I thought was right on many of the issues, and totally unelectable in a general election.  Just my opinion, and I do think having a formal primary is important in the democratic process.  But demonizing the candidates in the way some have done (not all, but some) does not encourage debate of the issues, and hold whatever the ultimate candidate's feet to the progressive/liberal fire, but seems more intent on dampening ultimate enthusiasm for whatever candidate wins the primary, which seems to be the intent of the GOP - as they have been linked to some of the memes, and stories.  That is what I was referring to as the Nader effect.  Thinking both sides are the same, and either not voting, or voting for someone else who you no cannot win as a protest vote.  

I in no way want to anoint HRC.  I think whoever is the ultimate candidate will only benefit from a primary that vets the issues.