The problem is, because of her record, I don't trust her. At all. I don't believe what she says. And according to recent polling, a majority of the country doesn't either.
I will not believe Hillary will do anything significant to combat income inequality, or the justice system, as long as she accepting boat loads of cash from Goldman Sachs and her other Wall Street pals.
She needs to do more than just talk to convince me. Because I don't believe anything she says.
Yes. I know Sanders chances are slim but at least Clinton will have to debate someone.
I also strongly believe third party candidates that make it to the ballot for the general election should be included in Presidential debates. If they did enough work to get on the ballot in every state, they should be included in the debates.
No one can make you believe anyone or anything, including and especially me. Distrust is healthy skepticism, until it becomes toxic.
Hillary is going to address your issues, whether you want her to or not. Especially now that Bernie's in the race. He will be the good conscience who "draws the center to the left."
He knows he's not going to win. He's in it for the debates, during which she'll have to address the issues he brings up: and those are the issues that you and progressives and millennials care about.
I think it's toxic to believe someone who is taking boatloads of money from people who have a very vested interested in keeping things status quo is going to seriously take on the problem of income inequality is fooling themselves.
She could convince me. She could put her money where her mouth is and change the way her top donor list reads.
Well, in the speech she gave this morning, she already contradicted the hedge fund managers quote in that article:
One anonymous Democratic donor who works on the Street said Clinton’s rhetoric is “just politics,” while another donor who manages a hedge fund said, “The question is not going to be whether or not hedge fund managers or C.E.O.s make too much money,” but rather, “how do you solve the problem of inequality?”
“Nobody takes it like she is going after them personally,” the second donor said.
As it said in the Huff Post article I posted before, she said that measuring how many families can get ahead and stay ahead was "a far better measurement than the size of bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings.”
I guess it's hard for me to believe what she says based on her extensive record and the fact that while she may be making speeches that sound good, she is still collecting millions from the people she's slamming in her speech.
Obama said all the same things. Income inequality has increased over the past 8 years.
Maybe I am cynical. Listening to the stories of people living in poverty on a daily basis can do that to you.
Thank you Erik, yes this is all about the poor and the soon to be poor, and the disenfranchised. Well done sir. Hillary Clinton is not our friend. I don't care if the Dems lose the next election, the debate needs to take a shift.
This speech makes her and Rand Paul possible running mates. Yes we have too many incarcerated, of course, she mentions nothing in that half hour speech about income inequality, or the real reason for urban uprisings. I dislike her more now. This stuff was too easy. Can't wait until Bernie makes her talk about issues that are controversial. This was fluff and bull****.
"This speech makes her and Rand Paul possible running mates."
It does nothing of the sort.
"She mentions nothing in that half hour speech about income inequality, or the real reason for urban uprisings."
"We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children."
South Florida, did you actually watch the entire 30-minute speech, or did you just skim the article?
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
South Flo--translate this into your owjn words and prove yourself wrong:
"Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children."
So now you've downgraded your "nothing was said about income inequality" to "nothing I LIKE was said about income inequality" or "nothing was said about income inequality and taxing the wealthy."
Given that the topic of the speech was reforming the criminal-justice system, I thought it was pretty laudable that she was able to include equality of economic opportunity into her comments.
Maybe when she gives a speech about taxation, she'll speak about taxes on the wealthy, but this was about criminal-justice reform.
You say, "I dislike her more now..."
I fear you've become the progressive equivalent of those 1990s right-wingers who were so blinded by their hatred of the Clintons that they couldn't speak without spitting.
Take a Xanax. It's going to be a looooooooong 19 months.